Talk:Donald Trump

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205Auto-archiving period: 7 days

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: This page is biased towards or against Trump. Why won't you fix it? A1: The answer is too long to include here, but please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Q2: A recent request for comment had X votes for support and Y votes for oppose. Why was it closed as no consensus when one position had more support than the other? A2: Wikipedia is built on consensus, which means that editors and contributors here debate the merits of adding, subtracting, or rearranging the information. Consensus is not a vote, rather it is a discussion among community members over how best to interpret and apply information within the bounds of our policy and guideline infrastructure. Often, but not always, the community finds itself unable to obtain consensus for changes or inclusions to the article. In other cases, the community may decide that consensus exists to add or modify material based on the strength of the arguments made by members citing relevant policy and guideline related material here. This can create confusion for new comers or those unfamiliar with Wikipedia's consensus building processes, especially since consensus can change. While all are welcome to participate in consensus building, keep in mind that the best positions for or against including material are based on policy and guideline pages, so it may be in your best interest to read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before diving into the debates.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 17, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2019 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 29, 2020 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former good article nominee

Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on June 13, 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Business Mid‑importance Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism High‑importance Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City High‑importance New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American / Political parties Top‑importance Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance). Television: American Mid‑importance Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American television task force. United States: Television / Presidential elections / Government Top‑importance United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance). Presidents of the United States: Donald Trump Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force. University of Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 2010s 2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Wikipedia". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Wikipedia page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Wikipedia, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Wikipedia is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Wikipedia pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Wikipedia pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Wikipedia editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge. Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Wikipedia". The Daily Dot. Warren, Tom (November 22, 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge. Blumenthal, Eli (November 22, 2018). "Wikipedia vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today. Griffin, Andrew (November 23, 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Wikipedia edit". The Independent. Gander, Kashmira (November 23, 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Wikipedia page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek. Martin, Alan (November 26, 2018). "The Trump penis Wikipedia war has kicked off again". The Inquirer. Brandom, Russell (December 3, 2018). "Wikipedia engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge. Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Wikipedia Entry Is a War Zone". Slate. Pasternack, Alex (March 7, 2020). "How Wikipedia's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company. Flood, Brian (May 21, 2020). "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News. Evon, Dan (November 19, 2020). "Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump's Wikipedia Page?". Snopes. Williams, Zoe (October 23, 2023). "Why is Elon Musk attacking Wikipedia? Because its very existence offends him". The Guardian. Hays, Gabriel (May 31, 2024). "CNN host suggests Trump conviction not mentioned prominently enough on former president's Wikipedia page". Fox News. Harrison, Stephen (June 4, 2024). "The Most Heated Debate on Trump's Felony Conviction Is Happening on ... Wikipedia?". Slate. Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv (October 17, 2024). "Go ahead and use Wikipedia for research". The Boston Globe. Eugene Smith (June 3, 2025). "Who writes Trump's Wikipedia page? Meet the 'edit warriors'". The Times. Ashley Rindsberg (October 3, 2025). "How Wikipedia made Trump an 'authoritarian'". Fox News. David Ingram (October 27, 2025). "Elon Musk launches Grokipedia as an alternative to 'woke' Wikipedia". NBC News.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: Indictments against Donald Trump Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign Second presidency of Donald Trump Second presidential transition of Donald Trump ... or dozens of other articles, as listed at WP:TRUMPOTA. Thanks!

Page history

On November 16, 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Donald Trump to Donald J. Trump. The result of the discussion was not moved. This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 233 million views since December 2007. This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 150 times. The weeks in which this happened: June 14 to 20, 2015 June 28 to July 4, 2015 July 19 to 25, 2015 July 26 to August 1, 2015 August 2 to 8, 2015 August 9 to 15, 2015 August 16 to 22, 2015 August 23 to 29, 2015 August 30 to September 5, 2015 September 6 to 12, 2015 September 13 to 19, 2015 September 20 to 26, 2015 September 27 to October 3, 2015 December 6 to 12, 2015 December 13 to 19, 2015 January 3 to 9, 2016 January 10 to 16, 2016 January 17 to 23, 2016 January 24 to 30, 2016 January 31 to February 6, 2016 February 7 to 13, 2016 February 14 to 20, 2016 February 21 to 27, 2016 February 28 to March 5, 2016 March 6 to 12, 2016 March 13 to 19, 2016 March 20 to 26, 2016 March 27 to April 2, 2016 April 3 to 9, 2016 April 10 to 16, 2016 April 17 to 23, 2016 April 24 to 30, 2016 May 1 to 7, 2016 May 8 to 14, 2016 May 15 to 21, 2016 May 22 to 28, 2016 May 29 to June 4, 2016 June 5 to 11, 2016 June 12 to 18, 2016 July 3 to 9, 2016 July 10 to 16, 2016 July 17 to 23, 2016 July 24 to 30, 2016 July 31 to August 6, 2016 August 21 to 27, 2016 August 28 to September 3, 2016 September 4 to 10, 2016 September 11 to 17, 2016 September 18 to 24, 2016 September 25 to October 1, 2016 October 2 to 8, 2016 October 9 to 15, 2016 October 16 to 22, 2016 October 23 to 29, 2016 October 30 to November 5, 2016 November 6 to 12, 2016 November 13 to 19, 2016 November 20 to 26, 2016 November 27 to December 3, 2016 December 4 to 10, 2016 December 11 to 17, 2016 December 18 to 24, 2016 January 1 to 7, 2017 January 8 to 14, 2017 January 15 to 21, 2017 January 22 to 28, 2017 January 29 to February 4, 2017 February 5 to 11, 2017 February 12 to 18, 2017 February 19 to 25, 2017 February 26 to March 4, 2017 March 5 to 11, 2017 March 12 to 18, 2017 March 19 to 25, 2017 March 26 to April 1, 2017 April 2 to 8, 2017 April 23 to 29, 2017 May 14 to 20, 2017 May 21 to 27, 2017 May 28 to June 3, 2017 June 11 to 17, 2017 June 25 to July 1, 2017 October 8 to 14, 2017 October 22 to 28, 2017 November 26 to December 2, 2017 January 14 to 20, 2018 June 10 to 16, 2018 September 30 to October 6, 2018 October 28 to November 3, 2018 November 4 to 10, 2018 November 11 to 17, 2018 November 18 to 24, 2018 November 25 to December 1, 2018 December 9 to 15, 2018 September 22 to 28, 2019 December 15 to 21, 2019 January 5 to 11, 2020 February 23 to 29, 2020 March 1 to 7, 2020 April 12 to 18, 2020 May 31 to June 6, 2020 June 7 to 13, 2020 June 14 to 20, 2020 June 21 to 27, 2020 June 28 to July 4, 2020 August 9 to 15, 2020 August 16 to 22, 2020 August 23 to 29, 2020 September 27 to October 3, 2020 October 4 to 10, 2020 October 11 to 17, 2020 October 18 to 24, 2020 October 25 to 31, 2020 November 1 to 7, 2020 November 8 to 14, 2020 November 15 to 21, 2020 November 22 to 28, 2020 November 29 to December 5, 2020 December 6 to 12, 2020 December 13 to 19, 2020 January 3 to 9, 2021 January 10 to 16, 2021 January 17 to 23, 2021 January 24 to 30, 2021 January 31 to February 6, 2021 July 10 to 16, 2022 June 11 to 17, 2023 May 26 to June 1, 2024 June 23 to 29, 2024 July 14 to 20, 2024 July 21 to 27, 2024 October 20 to 26, 2024 October 27 to November 2, 2024 November 3 to 9, 2024 November 10 to 16, 2024 November 17 to 23, 2024 November 24 to 30, 2024 January 12 to 18, 2025 January 19 to 25, 2025 January 26 to February 1, 2025 February 2 to 8, 2025 February 9 to 15, 2025 February 16 to 22, 2025 February 23 to March 1, 2025 March 2 to 8, 2025 March 9 to 15, 2025 March 16 to 22, 2025 March 30 to April 5, 2025 April 6 to 12, 2025 July 13 to 19, 2025

Other talk page banners

Section sizes Section size for Donald Trump (69 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 10,256 10,256 520 520 Early life and education 4,312 4,312 362 362 Business career 172 37,862 0 2,045 Real estate 6,390 18,051 513 1,151 Manhattan and Chicago developments 6,585 6,585 349 349 Atlantic City casinos 3,713 3,713 224 224 Golf clubs 1,363 1,363 65 65 Licensing the Trump name 1,469 1,469 67 67 Side ventures 7,328 7,328 295 295 Foundation 5,112 5,112 219 219 Legal affairs and bankruptcies 2,237 2,237 134 134 Wealth 3,493 3,493 179 179 Media career 4,029 5,718 180 258 The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice 1,689 1,689 78 78 Early political aspirations 4,778 4,778 181 181 2016 presidential election 16,310 16,310 534 534 First presidency (2017–2021) 576 114,411 46 3,681 Early actions 1,417 1,417 79 79 Conflicts of interest 5,385 5,385 209 209 Domestic policy 20,079 20,079 640 640 Race relations 6,815 6,815 255 255 Pardons and commutations 2,714 2,714 121 121 Immigration and family separation 15,201 15,201 461 461 Foreign policy 9,632 9,632 305 305 Personnel 5,144 5,144 170 170 Judiciary 3,932 3,932 141 141 COVID-19 pandemic 6,472 6,472 179 179 Investigations 14,107 14,107 357 357 Impeachments 3,104 3,104 124 124 2020 presidential election 5,513 5,513 135 135 Loss to Biden and rejection of outcome 8,010 8,010 216 216 January 6 Capitol attack 6,310 6,310 243 243 Between presidencies (2021–2025) 5,753 17,870 221 672 Legal issues 12,117 12,117 451 451 2024 presidential election 14,267 14,267 321 321 Second presidency (2025–present) 2,420 68,233 73 2,158 Early actions, 2025–present 6,543 6,543 249 249 Conflicts of interest, 2025–present 4,807 4,807 216 216 Mass terminations of federal employees 9,378 9,378 266 266 Targeting political opponents 5,342 5,342 166 166 Pardons and commutations, 2025–present 1,918 1,918 57 57 Domestic policy, 2025–present 21,073 22,993 510 673 One Big Beautiful Bill Act 1,920 1,920 163 163 Immigration, 2025–present 3,237 3,237 129 129 Foreign policy, 2025–present 8,842 8,842 244 244 Personnel, 2025–present 2,753 2,753 85 85 Political practice and rhetoric 7,724 55,136 236 1,637 Racial and gender views 11,196 11,196 363 363 Link to violence and hate crimes 7,273 7,273 226 226 Conspiracy theories 2,218 2,218 43 43 False or misleading statements 10,094 10,094 197 197 Social media 6,497 6,497 211 211 Relationship with the press 10,134 10,134 361 361 Personal life 18 10,763 0 390 Family 1,377 1,377 72 72 Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein 1,123 1,123 52 52 Health 3,575 3,575 124 124 Religion 4,670 4,670 142 142 Assessments 18 6,099 0 248 Public image 3,608 3,608 165 165 Scholarly rankings 2,473 2,473 83 83 See also 112 112 0 0 Notes 136 136 0 0 References 30 30 0 0 Works cited 18 13,827 0 0 Books 4,209 4,209 0 0 Journals 9,600 9,600 0 0 Further reading 172 172 0 0 External links 5,939 5,939 0 0 Total 386,231 386,231 13,007 13,007

Current consensus

• v
• e

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Donald Trump#Cn|consensus n]], where n (2 times) is the item number.
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

04. Superseded by #15

Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

07. Superseded by #35

Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Superseded by unlisted consensus

Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

10. Canceled

Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)

11. Superseded by #17

The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 7 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019) Strikethrough July 2025. Per WP:EDITREQ, edit requests are not for things that might require discussion. Per WP:CONLEVEL, local consensus may not override community consensus.

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)

18. Superseded by #63

The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)

19. Obsolete

Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

20. Superseded by unlisted consensus

Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018, superseded December 2024) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

23. Superseded by #52

The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018)

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019). Consensus on "racially charged" descriptor later superseded (February 2025).

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. See #44. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

35. Superseded by #49

Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)

36. Superseded by #39

Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not preclude bringing up for discussion whether to include media coverage relating to Trump's mental health and fitness. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. Superseded by #71

The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. See #32. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021) The consensus carries forward to "Official portrait, 2025" in 2025.

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Superseded by #70

Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (RfC October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item. Suggested closure for copy-and-paste:
   {{atop|Please read [[WP:TRUMPRCB]]. Closing per [[Talk:Donald Trump#C61|consensus 61]]. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ~~~~}}
   [existing thread]
   {{abot}}
3. Wait at least 24 hours per #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He drugs, and that he sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021) Amended (October 2025)

68. Do not expand the brief mention of Trumpism in the lead. (RfC January 2025)

69. Do not include the word "criminal" in the first sentence. (January 2025)

70. Supersedes #50. First two sentences read:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

Linking exactly as shown. (February 2025)

71. Supersedes #44. Omit from the lead a mention of the Trump–Kim meetings of 2018 and 2019. (April 2025)

72. Omit from the lead a mention of the January 6 pardons. (RfC July 2025)

73. Article body includes:

Trump had a 15-year friendship with Jeffrey Epstein; persons who knew them at the time said they frequently hit on and competed for women. Media attention and public pressure mounted in 2025, when his administration did not release files relating to Epstein, despite Trump's promise to do so during the 2024 campaign.

(August 2025, September 2025)

74. This article adheres to WP:EDITREQ. If an edit request is potentially controversial, an editor responds in one of three ways:

• :{{subst:EEp|c}} ~~~~, rendering as:
   Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. [your signature]
• If the editor prefers a less formal, more personal touch, non-template language to the same effect as above.
• Or some combination of the above two, with the template first.
  Unless someone feels the response was incorrect for the situation (the edit request was not potentially controversial), no comments are posted after the response. Unless there is a good faith challenge in the interim, the thread is manually archived after 24 hours after the response, per #13. (October 2025)

Internal consistency

This article generally conforms to MoS guidelines. Where MoS guidelines allow differences between articles at editor discretion, this article uses the conventions listed here.

Copy editing

These conventions do not apply to quotations or citation |title= parameters, which are left unchanged from the sources.

1. Use American English, per the {{use American English}} template. A good American English dictionary is at https://www.merriam-webster.com/.
2. Use "Month Day, Year" date format in prose, per the {{use mdy dates}} template.
3. To prevent line breaks between month and day in prose, code for example April 12. Since content is often moved around, do this even if the date occurs very early on the line.
4. To prevent line breaks within numerical quantities comprising two "words", code for example $10 billion.
5. Use unspaced em dash ("—"), not spaced en dash (" – ").
6. For em dash, code the HTML entity —. Do not code:
   • the actual em dash character (which is not found on standard keyboards and can be ambiguous in the font used in the edit window) or
   • the {{em dash}} template (which would unnecessarily consume some of the limited PEIS resource)
7. For en dash, code the HTML entity –. Do not code:
   • the actual en dash character (which is not found on standard keyboards and can be ambiguous in the font used in the edit window) or
   • the {{en dash}} template (which would unnecessarily consume some of the limited PEIS resource)
8. Use "U.S.", not "US", for abbreviation of "United States".
9. Use the Oxford/serial comma. Write "this, that, and the other", not "this, that and the other".
10. Code template names in all lower case. Write {{main}} and {{cite news}}, not {{Main}} and {{Cite news}}.
11. In the captions of images that depict Trump, generally omit identification of him; that is, omit his name. We omit the obvious, as image captions should always do. There are rare exceptions where "the obvious" is not so obvious, as at Donald Trump#Wealth.

References

The Citation Style 1 (CS1) templates are used for most references, including all news sources. Most commonly used are {{cite news}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite book}}, and {{cite web}}.

1. |work= and its aliases link to the Wikipedia article when one exists.
2. Generally, |work= and its aliases match the Wikipedia article's title exactly when one exists. Code |work=[[The New York Times]], not |work=[[New York Times]]. Code |work=[[Los Angeles Times]], not |work=[[The Los Angeles Times]].
   • There are some exceptions where a redirect is more appropriate, such as AP News and NPR News, but be consistent with those exceptions.
   • When the article title includes a parenthetical, such as in Time (magazine), pipe the link to drop the parenthetical: |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]]. Otherwise, there is rarely a good reason to pipe this link.
3. Code |last= and |first= for credited authors, not |author=.
4. Code |author-link= when an author has a Wikipedia article (known author links are listed below). Place this immediately after the |last= and |first= parameters for that author. |last1=Baker|first1=Peter|author-link1=Peter Baker (journalist)|last2=Freedman|first2=Dylan.
5. In |title= parameters, all-caps "shouting" is converted to title case. "AP FACT CHECK:" becomes "AP Fact Check:".
6. Per consensus 25, omit the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. These parameters are |url-status=, |archive-url=, and |archive-date=.
7. Omit |language= for English-language sources.
8. Omit |publisher= for news sources.
9. Omit |location= for news sources.
10. Omit |issn= for news sources.
11. Code a space before the pipe character for each parameter. For example, code: |date=April 12, 2025 |last=Baker |first=Peter |author-link=Peter Baker (journalist)—not: |date=April 12, 2025|last=Baker|first=Peter|author-link=Peter Baker (journalist). This provides the following benefits for the edit window and diffs:
    • Improved readability.
    • Over all, this tends to allow more line breaks at logical places (between cite parameters).
12. Otherwise, coding differences that do not affect what readers see are unimportant. Since they are unimportant, we don't need to revert changes by editors who think they are important (the changes, not the editors:). For example:
    • Any supported date format is acceptable since the templates convert dates to mdy format for display.
    • For web-based news sources, the choice between |work=, |newspaper=, and |website= is unimportant.
    • The sequence of template parameters is unimportant.

Known author links

|author-link=Davey Alba |author-link=Jacqueline Alemany |author-link=Binyamin Appelbaum |author-link=Matt Apuzzo |author-link=Rachael Bade |author-link=Peter Baker (journalist) |author-link=Dan Balz |author-link=Wayne Barrett |author-link=James Barron (journalist) |author-link=David Barstow |author-link=Michael C. Bender |author-link=Ruth Ben-Ghiat |author-link=Sheri Berman |author-link=Joan Biskupic |author-link=Gwenda Blair |author-link=John Blaxland (historian) |author-link=Laura Bliss |author-link=Melissa Block |author-link=Marie Brenner |author-link=Luke Broadwater |author-link=Ron Brownstein |author-link=Russ Buettner |author-link=Jason Burke |author-link=Alex Burns (journalist) |author-link=Fox Butterfield |author-link=Thomas Carothers |author-link=Ben Casselman |author-link=Kyle Cheney (journalist) |author-link=Chris Cillizza |author-link=Eleanor Clift |author-link=Kaitlan Collins |author-link=Nicholas Confessore |author-link=Kate Conger |author-link=Helene Cooper |author-link=Robert Costa (journalist) |author-link=Susanne Craig |author-link=Michael Crowley (journalist) |author-link=Daniel Dale |author-link=Michael D'Antonio |author-link=Julie Hirschfeld Davis |author-link=Josh Dawsey |author-link=Saeed Kamali Dehghan |author-link=Lisa de Moraes |author-link=Lisa Desjardins |author-link=Jeremy Diamond |author-link=David Enrich |author-link=Steven Erlanger |author-link=David Fahrenthold |author-link=Nicholas Fandos |author-link=Marc Fisher |author-link=David Folkenflik |author-link=Trip Gabriel |author-link=William G. Gale |author-link=Jamie Gangel |author-link=Bill Geist |author-link=Susan Glasser |author-link=Adam Goldman |author-link=David Greenberg (historian) |author-link=Maggie Haberman |author-link=Stephan Haggard |author-link=Shane Harris |author-link=Drew Harwell |author-link=Steven Hassan |author-link=Rosalind S. Helderman |author-link=Angie Drobnic Holan |author-link=Scott Horsley |author-link=Carl Hulse |author-link=Harry Hurt III |author-link=Mike Isaac |author-link=Ben Jacobs (journalist) |author-link=Kevin Johnson (academic) |author-link=David Cay Johnston |author-link=Andrew Kaczynski |author-link=Michiko Kakutani |author-link=Zolan Kanno-Youngs |author-link=Annie Karni |author-link=Aaron Katersky |author-link=Tamara Keith |author-link=Glenn Kessler (journalist) |author-link=Naomi Klein |author-link=Alison Kodjak |author-link=Maria Konnikova |author-link=Michael Kranish |author-link=Adrienne LaFrance |author-link=Sharon LaFraniere |author-link=Matt Lee (journalist) |author-link=Michelle Ye Hee Lee |author-link=Jonathan Lemire |author-link=Carol D. Leonnig |author-link=Adam B. Lerner |author-link=Adam Liptak |author-link=Eric Lipton |author-link=Ryan Mac |author-link=Ewen MacAskill |author-link=Tim Mak |author-link=Arash Markazi |author-link=Jonathan Martin (journalist) |author-link=Phil Mattingly |author-link=Jane Mayer |author-link=Mark Mazzetti |author-link=Sarah McCammon |author-link=Brett McGurk |author-link=Jesse McKinley |author-link=Jon Meacham |author-link=Jennifer Mercieca |author-link=Zeke Miller |author-link=Sara Murray (journalist) |author-link=Brigitte L. Nacos |author-link=Adam Nagourney |author-link=Ellen Nakashima |author-link=Ron Nixon |author-link=Floyd Norris |author-link=Emily Nussbaum |author-link=Timothy L. O'Brien |author-link=Ed O'Keefe |author-link=Toluse Olorunnipa |author-link=Michael Oreskes |author-link=Ashley Parker |author-link=Azi Paybarah |author-link=Robert Pear |author-link=Samuel L. Perry |author-link=Bill Pennington |author-link=Jeremy W. Peters |author-link=Abby Phillip |author-link=Kendra Pierre-Louis |author-link=David Pion-Berlin |author-link=James Poniewozik |author-link=Paul Pringle |author-link=Alan Rappeport |author-link=Frank Rich |author-link=Simon Romero |author-link=Matthew Rosenberg |author-link=Philip Rucker |author-link=Jim Rutenberg |author-link=Jason Samenow |author-link=David E. Sanger |author-link=Choe Sang-hun |author-link=Austin Sarat |author-link=Stephanie Saul |author-link=Charlie Savage (journalist) |author-link=Brian Schaffner |author-link=Noam Scheiber |author-link=Michael Scherer (journalist) |author-link=Michael S. Schmidt |author-link=David Segal (journalist) |author-link=Robert Y. Shapiro |author-link=Michael D. Shear |author-link=Sara Sidner |author-link=Scott Simon |author-link=Felicia Sonmez |author-link=Marianna Spring |author-link=Barbara Starr |author-link=Jeff Stein (author) |author-link=Eli Stokols |author-link=Sheryl Gay Stolberg |author-link=David Stout |author-link=Eileen Sullivan |author-link=Jonathan Swan |author-link=Hiroko Tabuchi |author-link=Michael Tackett |author-link=Glenn Thrush |author-link=Shawn Tully |author-link=Megan Twohey |author-link=Nadia Urbinati |author-link=Kenneth P. Vogel |author-link=Kenneth T. Walsh |author-link=David Weigel |author-link=Richard Winger |author-link=Patrick Wintour |author-link=Julia Carrie Wong |author-link=Christopher Zara |author-link=Jeff Zeleny

Tracking lead size

Word counts by paragraph and total. Click [show] to see weeklies.

2024

01 Oct 2024 — 615 = 029 + 101 + 108 + 156 + 100 + 121 08 Oct 2024 — 627 = 029 + 101 + 108 + 156 + 112 + 121 15 Oct 2024 — 629 = 029 + 101 + 108 + 156 + 100 + 135 22 Oct 2024 — 615 = 029 + 101 + 108 + 156 + 100 + 121 29 Oct 2024 — 615 = 029 + 101 + 108 + 156 + 100 + 121 05 Nov 2024 — 614 = 029 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121 12 Nov 2024 — 657 = 046 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 043 19 Nov 2024 — 418 = 062 + 076 + 153 + 127 26 Nov 2024 — 406 = 056 + 070 + 138 + 142 03 Dec 2024 — 418 = 053 + 064 + 158 + 143 10 Dec 2024 — 413 = 054 + 062 + 153 + 144 17 Dec 2024 — 422 = 058 + 057 + 141 + 166 24 Dec 2024 — 437 = 058 + 057 + 156 + 166 31 Dec 2024 — 465 = 087 + 060 + 154 + 164

07 Jan 2025 — 438 = 058 + 060 + 156 + 164

14 Jan 2025 — 432 = 058 + 060 + 145 + 169

21 Jan 2025 — 439 = 046 + 060 + 181 + 152

28 Jan 2025 — 492 = 047 + 084 + 155 + 135 + 071

---

04 Feb 2025 — 461 = 044 + 082 + 162 + 147 + 026

11 Feb 2025 — 475 = 044 + 079 + 154 + 141 + 057

18 Feb 2025 — 502 = 044 + 081 + 154 + 178 + 045

25 Feb 2025 — 459 = 040 + 087 + 149 + 138 + 045

---

04 Mar 2025 — 457 = 040 + 087 + 149 + 128 + 053

11 Mar 2025 — 447 = 040 + 087 + 149 + 128 + 043

18 Mar 2025 — 446 = 040 + 087 + 147 + 129 + 043

25 Mar 2025 — 445 = 040 + 087 + 147 + 128 + 043

---

01 Apr 2025 — 458 = 040 + 087 + 171 + 114 + 046

08 Apr 2025 — 493 = 040 + 104 + 167 + 128 + 054

15 Apr 2025 — 502 = 040 + 101 + 158 + 128 + 075

22 Apr 2025 — 495 = 040 + 110 + 159 + 128 + 058

29 Apr 2025 — 522 = 040 + 113 + 159 + 128 + 082

---

06 May 2025 — 534 = 040 + 113 + 159 + 128 + 094

13 May 2025 — 530 = 040 + 113 + 159 + 063 + 090 + 065

20 May 2025 — 529 = 040 + 113 + 091 + 068 + 064 + 088 + 065

27 May 2025 — 528 = 040 + 113 + 091 + 050 + 064 + 087 + 083

---

03 Jun 2025 — 549 = 040 + 112 + 141 + 087 + 086 + 083

10 Jun 2025 — 549 = 040 + 112 + 141 + 087 + 086 + 083

17 Jun 2025 — 549 = 040 + 112 + 141 + 087 + 086 + 083

24 Jun 2025 — 549 = 040 + 112 + 141 + 087 + 086 + 083

---

01 Jul 2025 — 545 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 086 + 083

08 Jul 2025 — 530 = 040 + 108 + 135 + 087 + 077 + 083

15 Jul 2025 — 538 = 040 + 108 + 135 + 087 + 085 + 083

22 Jul 2025 — 547 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 085 + 086

29 Jul 2025 — 547 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 085 + 086

---

05 Aug 2025 — 547 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 085 + 086

12 Aug 2025 — 556 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 094 + 086

19 Aug 2025 — 564 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 102 + 086

26 Aug 2025 — 564 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 102 + 086

---

02 Sep 2025 — 564 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 102 + 086

09 Sep 2025 — 564 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 102 + 086

16 Sep 2025 — 564 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 102 + 086

23 Sep 2025 — 568 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 106 + 086

30 Sep 2025 — 568 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 106 + 086

---

07 Oct 2025 — 568 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 106 + 086

14 Oct 2025 — 568 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 106 + 086

21 Oct 2025 — 572 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 110 + 086

28 Oct 2025 — 546 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 084 + 086

---

04 Nov 2025 — 547 = 040 + 109 + 141 + 087 + 084 + 086

11 Nov 2025 — 535 = 040 + 109 + 141 + 075 + 084 + 086

18 Nov 2025 — 512 = 040 + 109 + 145 + 077 + 072 + 069

25 Nov 2025 — 532 = 040 + 109 + 145 + 080 + 072 + 086

---

02 Dec 2025 — 532 = 040 + 109 + 145 + 080 + 072 + 086

---

Tracking article size

Readable prose size in words – Wiki markup size in bytes – Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the PEIS limit.^[a] Click [show] to see weeklies.

2024

01 Oct 2024 — 15,811 – 414,704 – n/a 08 Oct 2024 — 15,823 – 414,725 – n/a 15 Oct 2024 — 15,824 – 415,035 – n/a 22 Oct 2024 — 15,873 – 420,021 – n/a 29 Oct 2024 — 15,822 – 421,276 – n/a 05 Nov 2024 — 15,818 – 421,592 – 103 12 Nov 2024 — 15,883 – 427,790 – 046 19 Nov 2024 — 15,708 – 430,095 – 012 [discussion] 26 Nov 2024 — 15,376 – 414,196 – 067 03 Dec 2024 — 15,479 – 415,176 – 064 10 Dec 2024 — 15,279 – 404,464 – 122 17 Dec 2024 — 15,294 – 405,370 – 080 24 Dec 2024 — 14,863 – 402,971 – 190 31 Dec 2024 — 14,989 – 409,188 – 180

07 Jan 2025 — 14,681 – 404,773 – 187

14 Jan 2025 — 14,756 – 403,398 – 191

21 Jan 2025 — 15,086 – 422,683 – 094

28 Jan 2025 — 12,852 – 365,724 – 203

---

04 Feb 2025 — 11,261 – 337,988 – 254

11 Feb 2025 — 11,168 – 339,283 – 249

18 Feb 2025 — 11,180 – 339,836 – 247

25 Feb 2025 — 11,213 – 343,445 – 242

---

04 Mar 2025 — 11,179 – 346,533 – 240

11 Mar 2025 — 11,058 – 343,849 – 243

18 Mar 2025 — 10,787 – 338,465 – 253

25 Mar 2025 — 10,929 – 340,876 – 248

---

01 Apr 2025 — 11,191 – 350,011 – 230

08 Apr 2025 — 11,334 – 356,921 – 217

15 Apr 2025 — 11,443 – 363,611 – 175

22 Apr 2025 — 11,397 – 361,630 – 180

29 Apr 2025 — 11,344 – 361,732 – 180

---

06 May 2025 — 11,537 – 365,243 – 171

13 May 2025 — 11,565 – 365,873 – 171

20 May 2025 — 11,574 – 366,310 – 171

27 May 2025 — 11,636 – 369,056 – 164

---

03 Jun 2025 — 11,678 – 369,696 – 164

10 Jun 2025 — 11,758 – 370,645 – 163

17 Jun 2025 — 11,705 – 370,943 – 160

24 Jun 2025 — 11,650 – 369,162 – 162

---

01 Jul 2025 — 11,622 – 368,483 – 163

08 Jul 2025 — 11,599 – 368,528 – 162

15 Jul 2025 — 11,843 – 373,664 – 152

22 Jul 2025 — 11,978 – 376,726 – 146

29 Jul 2025 — 11,813 – 375,310 – 146

---

05 Aug 2025 — 12,051 – 381,202 – 136

12 Aug 2025 — 12,213 – 384,442 – 112

19 Aug 2025 — 12,383 – 388,816 – 104

26 Aug 2025 — 12,529 – 395,560 – 091

---

02 Sep 2025 — 12,726 – 398,489 – 086

09 Sep 2025 — 12,826 – 405,283 – 071

16 Sep 2025 — 12,975 – 408,166 – 069

23 Sep 2025 — 12,979 – 408,503 – 068

30 Sep 2025 — 13,171 – 417,860 – 051

---

07 Oct 2025 — 13,167 – 416,077 – 052

14 Oct 2025 — 13,114 – 414,237 – 057

21 Oct 2025 — 13,108 – 414,101 – 054

28 Oct 2025 — 13,171 – 417,154 – 048

---

04 Nov 2025 — 13,175 – 417,011 – 050

11 Nov 2025 — 13,164 – 415,372 – 034 [discussion]

18 Nov 2025 — 12,956 – 394,038 – 061

25 Nov 2025 — 12,783 – 388,790 – 071

---

02 Dec 2025 — 12,773 – 386,717 – 072

---

Note

Notes This number is (PEIS limit minus PEIS) divided by 2000. A typical citation in this article contributes about 2,000 bytes to the article's PEIS. While all other template transclusions also contribute to PEIS, they are far fewer in number and their contributions vary widely. This number is a very rough but useful approximation. If it falls below about 40, it's time to start talking about ways to reduce the article's PEIS. (Trimming cited body content is only one of the ways; for another example, we can remove dispensable navboxes at the bottom of the article.) This is more meaningful to editors than showing the PEIS or the number of additional bytes before exceeding the PEIS limit.

Bulking down the article: Currently over 410 388Kb in size

Updated to reflect size as of today. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article page is so large it's daunting and it's continuing to grow. There are several sections which might be reconsidered as to the best place to keep them on Wikipedia and which sibling articles on Wikipedia might be the best place for moving them. There are separate subheadings that appear to be amenable to being moved in a reasonable way to their main sibling articles or to have a page split for new sibling articles. Also, its possible other editors have other suggestions for thinking about bulking down this very large article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am against any new articles; this is not Trumpoedia. But, yes, where we have articles already (such as about his presidency) the material beyond a few lines should be there. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am against any new articles what are you going to do then when more important information about him or that his administration does inevitably comes out? Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Put it in one of the many we already have about his presidencies, his crimes, His businesses, his bans, his wives, and god knows what else, we already have. Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, if there's room, but wouldn't these articles get too big eventually? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, its possible other editors have other suggestions for thinking about bulking down this very large article. It's called summary style. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 22:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing much sense in what Slatersteven is saying; there's lots of Wikipedia articles to propose as better places to keep many of the details in the main Trump article. It might be useful for editors to start to make suggestions on which sections to start to trim as the best way of making the main article for Trump more readable for the benefit of readers; requiring readers to spend 50-60 minutes in order to read a 410Kb article seems an excessive requirement. Which sections should be shortened as suggested by Slatersteven? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The presidential ones. I have already created a subsection here about that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As in both the first presidency and the second presidency? And do you mean that the subsection you created can be reallocated to a sibling article? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This exact discussion keeps coming up consistently. Most of the work to trim the article needs to happen in the presidency sections. It would not be improper to significantly trim either section. Elizabeth II reigned for seventy years, yet her article is very sparse. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supporting the comments from both ElijahPepe and Slatersteven above that starting to trim some of the sections, probably the presidential sections especially, is warranted at this time. It might be useful to start thinking about the size of the reduction which would be best by targeting something like a 1/3 reduction or a 1/2 reduction as providing the best benefit for the article. It might also be useful to see some thoughts about which paragraphs within those sections might be best to start off the trim process to reduce their very large size. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might be an idea to just copy and paste the intros from the sub articles, and work from there. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm needing to go along with you on this suggestion. If I'm reading you correctly then the First presidency section would be first in line, and its first multiple paragraph section there is on Domestic policy: could you perhaps suggest the replacement paragraph for it using your idea just stated above in order for others to have a look at the paragraph you would suggest for that subsection's replacement? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, focusing on the presidential content is the only way to quickly and efficiently reduce the size. There should not be any presidency subsections here. Period. Just a short, summary style, section with a hatnote pointing to the actual article on the topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be any presidency subsections here. Period. That's extreme. His presidencies are what he will always be best known for, and an essential part of his biography. Yes, there are subarticles containing the same information and more. That doesn't mean we should eliminate all that from his bio. Just reduce what we have to summary style; I don't see a need to eliminate many of the existing subsections; they should merely be shorter subsections. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 16:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven: It looks like 2-3 editors (Elijah, Valjean, myself, etc) are supporting your suggestion for doing this; any chance that you might add here what your replacement text would be for the 1st presidency section in the Domestic policy subheading? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II and Trump: apples and oranges. The U.K. is a constitutional monarchy. British monarchs have ceremonial duties, not a political or legislative role; Elizabeth's article contains such earth-shattering facts as this one: In 1961, she toured Cyprus, India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Iran, rather than that she tried to dismantle British government agencies. Another big difference: her article has 321 refs instead of Trump's 814 as of today. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1st presidency section

Donald Trump's first tenure as the president of the United States began on January 20, 2017 and ended on January 20, 2021. It was marked by controversy and unsuccessful implementation. During his first term he was praised and criticized for his actions during the Covid crisis in the USA.

This is all we need, we have an article to discuss the whys and wherefores. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woof. I want reduction, but not that much reduction. I don't necessarily disagree with a single section for first term, but I think you could multiply that content by about ten and still call it summary style. All I care about is summary style and permanent freedom from PEIS issues. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 10:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Slatersteven about this; his principle is a valid one which states in general that Wikipedia does not need to duplicate material which already exists on well-maintained sibling articles. If you want to add a second sentence to his suggestion above, then you can go ahead and add it here for Slatersteven, Valjean and myself to look at. Slatersteven I assume can add a cite or two to his suggestion above, and I'm leaning to support him on this for inclusion in the article at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you say that some (all?) of the subarticles are parts of his biography, mere extensions/branches of this article that exist for technical reasons alone, I suppose that makes sense. That would break new ground for U.S. presidents. I like innovation and hate "because it's how things have always been done", but you would be on shaky ground that would probably fail an RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 18:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence could serve to sum up much of Trump's adult life, including his first two marriages. We'd still have the pardons, though, which were extremely successfully implemented, and the relationship with Epstein which lasted longer than each of his first two marriages. Could we still mention the first term in the lead? According to another current thread on this Talk page, three sentences in the body may not make it leadworthy. Just asking aspirationally ... Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still seeing the benefit of going with Slatersteven on his condesed version approach to the 1st presidency section; either one of you, or Slatersteven himself, could expand his short version above by adding another sentence or two. I'm thinking also that the lede is generally guided by the importance of issues rather than quantity of coverage included in the article for its subheadings. It seems that the rule of thumb that the 1st presidency does have its own hieghtened significance by the fact that it represents a 4-year presidency for the USA should still merit summary in the lede which I'd support. If you have a sentence or two to add to Slatersteven's suggested condensed version above then it would be useful to see it; he appears to have a good approach with multiple editors supporting. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple editors": I counted a total of 13 participants in the three sections discussing the size, i.e. this section, "PEIS Condition Two - moderate urgency" (the urgency has passed, per "PEIS updates"), and "Size reduction efforts and WP:PRESERVE". Five of the participants support a mass deletion. That's neither a multitude nor a majority. The last times mass deletions such as the proposed one was discussed the consensus was "don't" — can't be bothered to root through the archives back around the time period from the election to the inauguration. I'm still a hard NO on mass deletions. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple editors" supporting Slatersteven edit: Elijah, Valjean, Deamonpen, Slatersteven, myself, Riposte97

Editors opposed: Space4Time, Mandruss.

You can still add a sentence or two and cites in the proposed edit which is supported by multiple editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see editors Deamonpen and "etc" involved in this discussion. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User Deamonpen sent me a message on my User page notification; you can ping him if needed. I've added Riposte97 to the support list of multiple editors who like Slatersteven's proposed edit; Mandruss is added to the opposes. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User Deamonpen sent me a message on my User page notification: I don't know what that means. They pinged you from some other Talk page? I don't see their username on your user talk page or yours on theirs. Either way, if they don't comment on THIS talk page, it doesn't count on this talk page. This is just curiosity on my part; it no longer matters since we now have an RfC. Space4TCatHerder🖖 23:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Donald Trump's first tenure as the president of the United States began on January 20, 2017 and ended on January 20, 2021. It was marked by controversy and unsuccessful implementation, with Trump becoming the first sitting president to be impeached twice. During his first term, he was praised and criticized for his actions during the Covid crisis in the USA."

So is anyone going to suggest any other additions? Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

USA->U.S. per MOS:NOTUSA and local convention. Anyway, strong oppose such a brief summary of those four impactful years of Trump's life, per my previous comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 15:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding or deleting a sentence or two is an edit. What you're proposing is the mass deletion of eight years of work by an actual multitude of editors, including 200 reliable sources. That's the consensus version arrived at by a community broader than five editors out of 13. A mass deletion was proposed around the beginning of the year and rejected. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh…work and sources can always be reinstated if it's decided (somehow) that this article is lacking in detail. Essentially, you're making the tautological point that what is proposed to be deleted was added in the past. I support Slatersteven here. Riposte97 (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going from one extreme to the other. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 05:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is why we have a whole seperate article. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second presidency has a whole separate article. So you'll be reducing that part of the article to three sentences? If not, this argument falls flat. First term is not less important in this article than second term; that is recentist thinking. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 15:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly open to a longer entry in summary style, but unless you're willing to propose one Mandruss, I fear this process will get bogged down in the minutiae. For now I’m 'cut first', then see if the patient can survive a bit more detail later. Riposte97 (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I won't be doing that. Not in my skill set. Surely there is an editor around who wants more content and is capable of writing it. One or two in particular come to mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 22:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I won't be doing that, either, just in case I was one of the one or two that came to mind. First of all, the section has already been pared down considerably since last year, and the article is now down to just under 389kB, so no longer critical. Secondly, there's a straight line from the first term (whether it's the climate change/green energy "hoax", health care, immigration, race/misogyny/diversity, pardons, conflicts of interest, etc.) to the second term (first term on steroids). E.g., sure, the then-longest government shutdown in Trump's first term is now the second-longest behind the one in Trump's second term, but does that make it irrelevant? When he's out of office we can say "the two longest government shutdowns in American history" (fingers crossed it ends at two). Thirdly, 'cut first', then see if the patient can survive a bit more detail later — I don't think that's how surgery works. If an editor thinks that certain content is more than summary-style or redundant/irrelevant/outdated/whatever, they should put it up for discussion. Or is that too much work minutiae? Also, per the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents, I assume the lead's summary of the truncated first term section would be the second half of the second sentence of the first paragraph, he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021? Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, essentially I am making this point:

what is being proposed is the reduction of the " First presidency (2017–2021)" section to three sentences. I have removed heading formats and the sources in the hatted version below. Please, also note that the editors proposing the mass reduction may not be aware of this change of heading levels I made yesterday. Reason: Trump's 2020 reelection campaign, denial of loss, and the Jan 6 attack on the Capital—which was the reason for the second impeachment—took place during Trump's first term.

Version as of November 23, 2025

First presidency (2017–2021) Main article: First presidency of Donald Trump For a chronological guide, see Timeline of the Donald Trump presidencies. Trump, with his family watching, raises his right hand and places his left hand on the Bible as he takes the oath of office. Roberts stands opposite him administering the oath Early actions See also: First 100 days of the first Trump presidency Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2017. The day after his inauguration, an estimated 2.6 million people worldwide, including 500,000 in Washington, D.C., protested against him in the Women's Marches.[175] During his first week in office, Trump signed six executive orders, including authorizing procedures for repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, advancement of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipeline projects, and planning for a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.[176] Conflicts of interest See also: First presidency of Donald Trump § Ethics Before being inaugurated, Trump moved his businesses into a revocable trust,[177][178] rather than a blind trust or equivalent arrangement "to cleanly sever himself from his business interests".[179] He continued to profit from his businesses and knew how his administration's policies affected them.[178][180] Although he said he would eschew "new foreign deals", the Trump Organization pursued operational expansions in Scotland, Dubai, and the Dominican Republic.[178][180] Lobbyists, foreign government officials, and Trump donors and allies generated hundreds of millions of dollars for his resorts and hotels.[181] Trump was sued for violating the Domestic and Foreign Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, the first time that the clauses had been substantively litigated.[182] One case was dismissed in lower court.[183] Two were dismissed by the Supreme Court as moot after his term.[184] During the campaign, Trump had pledged to donate his presidential salary[185] and profits from foreign patronage[186] to the U.S. government. He donated his salary to federal agencies and publicized each donation until July 2020. Federal agencies surveyed by The Washington Post in July 2021 reported not having received any gifts after that month.[187] Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington reported in 2024 that he had donated $448,000 of an estimated $13.6 million in payments from foreign governments in his first term.[188] Domestic policy Main articles: Domestic policy of the first Trump administration, Economic policy of the first Trump administration, Environmental policy of the first Trump administration, and Social policy of the first Trump administration Trump took office at the height of the longest economic expansion in American history,[189] which began in 2009 and continued until February 2020, when the COVID-19 recession began.[190] In December 2017, he signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. It reduced tax rates for businesses and individuals and eliminated the penalty associated with the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate.[191][192] The Trump administration claimed that the act would not decrease government revenue, but 2018 revenues were 7.6 percent lower than projected.[193] Under Trump, the federal budget deficit increased by almost 50 percent, to nearly $1 trillion in 2019.[194] By the end of his term, the U.S. national debt increased by 39 percent, reaching $27.75 trillion, and the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio hit a post-World War II high.[195] Trump also failed to deliver on his campaign promise of a $1 trillion infrastructure spending plan.[196] He rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.[197] He reduced the budget for renewable energy research by 40 percent and reversed Obama-era policies directed at curbing climate change.[198] He withdrew from the Paris Agreement, making the U.S. the only nation to not ratify it.[199] He aimed to boost the production and exports of fossil fuels.[200][201] Natural gas expanded under Trump, but coal continued to decline.[202][203] He rolled back more than 100 federal environmental regulations, including those that curbed greenhouse gas emissions, air and water pollution, and the use of toxic substances. He weakened protections for animals and environmental standards for federal infrastructure projects, and expanded permitted areas for drilling and resource extraction, such as allowing drilling in the Arctic Refuge.[204] Trump dismantled federal regulations on health,[205][206] labor,[206] the environment,[207][206] and other areas, including a bill that revoked the Obama-era regulation restricting the sale of firearms to severely mentally ill people.[208] During his first six weeks in office, he delayed, suspended, or reversed ninety federal regulations,[209] often "after requests by the regulated industries".[210] The Institute for Policy Integrity found that 78 percent of his proposals were blocked by courts or did not prevail over litigation.[211] During his campaign, Trump vowed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.[212] In office, he scaled back the Act's implementation through executive orders.[213][214] He expressed a desire to "let Obamacare fail"; his administration halved the enrollment period and drastically reduced funding for enrollment promotion.[215][216] In June 2018, the Trump administration joined 18 Republican-led states in arguing before the Supreme Court that the elimination of the financial penalties associated with the individual mandate had rendered the Act unconstitutional.[217][218] Their pleading would have eliminated health insurance coverage for up to 23 million Americans, but was unsuccessful.[217] During the 2016 campaign, Trump promised to protect funding for Medicare and other social safety-net programs. In January 2020, he expressed willingness to consider cuts to them.[219] In response to the opioid epidemic, Trump signed legislation in 2018 to increase funding for drug treatments, but was widely criticized for failing to make a concrete strategy.[220] He barred organizations that provide abortions or abortion referrals from receiving federal funds.[221] He said he supported "traditional marriage", but considered the nationwide legality of same-sex marriage "settled".[222] His administration rolled back key components of the Obama administration's workplace protections against discrimination of LGBTQ people.[223] His attempted rollback of anti-discrimination protections for transgender patients in August 2020 was halted by a federal judge after a Supreme Court ruling extended employees' civil rights protections to gender identity and sexual orientation.[224] Trump has said he is opposed to gun control, although his views have shifted over time.[225] His administration took an anti-marijuana position, revoking Obama-era policies that provided protections for states that legalized marijuana.[226] He is a long-time advocate of capital punishment,[227][228] and his administration oversaw the federal government execute 13 prisoners, more than in the previous 56 years combined, ending a 17-year moratorium.[229] In 2016, he said he supported the use of interrogation torture methods "a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding."[230][231] Race relations Trump's comments on the 2017 Unite the Right rally, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters.[232] In a January 2018 discussion of immigration legislation, he reportedly referred to El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, and African nations as "shithole countries".[233] His remarks were condemned as racist.[234] In July 2019, Trump tweeted that four Democratic congresswomen—all minorities, three of whom are native-born Americans—should "go back" to the countries they "came from".[235] Two days later the House of Representatives voted 240–187, mostly along party lines, to condemn his "racist comments".[236] White nationalist publications and social media praised his remarks, which continued over the following days.[237] He continued to make similar remarks during his 2020 campaign.[238] In June 2020, during the George Floyd protests, federal law-enforcement officials used tear gas and other crowd control tactics to remove a largely peaceful crowd of lawful protesters from Lafayette Square, outside the White House.[239][240] Trump then posed with a Bible for a photo-op at the nearby St. John's Episcopal Church,[239][241][242] with religious leaders condemning both the treatment of protesters and the photo opportunity itself.[243] Many retired military leaders and defense officials condemned his proposal to use the U.S. military against anti-police-brutality protesters.[244] Pardons and commutations Further information: List of people granted executive clemency in the first Trump presidency During his first term, Trump granted 237 requests for clemency, fewer than all presidents since 1900 with the exception of George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.[245] Only 25 of them had been vetted by the Justice Department's Office of the Pardon Attorney; the others were granted to people with personal or political connections to him, his family, and his allies, or recommended by celebrities.[246][247] In his last full day in office, he granted 73 pardons and commuted 70 sentences.[248] Several Trump allies were not eligible for pardons under Justice Department rules, and in other cases the department had opposed clemency.[246] The pardons of three military service members convicted of or charged with violent crimes were opposed by military leaders.[249] Immigration Main articles: Immigration policy of the first Trump administration and Mexico–United States border crisis § First Trump administration (2017–2021) Further information: Travel bans under the Trump administrations, Trump administration family separation policy, and Mexico–United States border wall § First Trump administration (2017–2021) As president, Trump described illegal immigration as an "invasion" of the United States[250] and drastically escalated immigration enforcement.[251][252] He implemented harsh policies against asylum seekers[252] and deployed nearly 6,000 troops to the U.S.–Mexico border to stop illegal crossings.[253] He reduced the number of refugees admitted to record lows, from an annual limit of 110,000 before he took office to 15,000 in 2021.[254][255][256] Trump also increased restrictions on granting permanent residency to immigrants needing public benefits.[257] One of his central campaign promises was to build a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border;[258] during his first term, the U.S. built 73 miles (117 km) of wall in areas without barriers and 365 miles (587 km) to replace older barriers.[259] In 2018, Trump's refusal to sign any spending bill unless it allocated funding for the border wall[260] resulted in the longest-ever federal government shutdown, for 35 days from December 2018 to January 2019.[261][262] The shutdown ended after he agreed to fund the government without any funds for the wall.[261] To avoid another shutdown, Congress passed a funding bill with $1.4 billion for border fencing in February.[263] Trump later declared a national emergency on the southern border to divert $6.1 billion of funding to the border wall[263] despite congressional disagreement.[264] In January 2017, Trump signed an executive order that denied entry to citizens from six Muslim-majority countries for four months and from Syria indefinitely.[265][266] The order caused many protests and legal challenges that resulted in nationwide injunctions.[265][266][267] A revised order giving some exceptions was also blocked by courts,[268][269] but the Supreme Court ruled in June that the ban could be enforced on those lacking "a bona fide relationship with a person or entity" in the U.S.[270] Trump replaced the ban in September with a presidential proclamation extending travel bans to North Koreans, Chadians, and some Venezuelan officials, but excluded Iraq and Sudan.[271] The Supreme Court allowed that version to go into effect in December 2017,[272] and ultimately upheld the ban in 2019.[273] From 2017 to 2018, the Trump administration had a policy of family separation that separated over 4,400 children of illegal immigrants from their parents at the U.S.–Mexico border,[274][275] an unprecedented[276] policy sparked public outrage in the country.[277] Despite Trump initially blaming Democrats[278][279] and insisting he could not stop the policy with an executive order, he acceded to public pressure in June 2018 and mandated that illegal immigrant families be detained together unless "there is a concern" of risk for the child.[280][281] A judge later ordered that the families be reunited and further separations stopped except in limited circumstances,[282][283] though over 1,000 additional children were separated from their families after the order.[275] Foreign policy Main articles: Foreign policy of the first Trump administration and Tariffs in the first Trump administration Further information: Russia–United States relations § First Trump administration (2017–2021), China–United States relations § First Trump administration (2017–2021), 2017–2018 North Korea crisis, and 2018–19 Korean peace process Trump described himself as a "nationalist"[284] and his foreign policy as "America First".[285] He supported populist, neo-nationalist, and authoritarian governments.[286] Unpredictability, uncertainty, and inconsistency characterized foreign relations during his tenure.[285][287] Relations between the U.S. and its European allies were strained under Trump.[288] He criticized NATO allies and privately suggested that the U.S. should withdraw from NATO.[289][290] Trump supported many of the policies of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[291] In 2020, Trump hosted the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to normalize their foreign relations.[292] Shaking hands with Russian president Vladimir Putin during the 2018 summit in Helsinki, Finland Trump began a trade war with China in 2018 after imposing tariffs and other trade barriers he said would force China to end longstanding unfair trade practice and intellectual property infringement.[293] Trump weakened the toughest U.S. sanctions imposed after the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea.[294][295] Trump praised and, according to some critics, rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin,[296][297] though he opposed some actions of Russia's government.[298] He withdrew the U.S. from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, citing alleged Russian noncompliance,[299] and supported Russia's possible return to the G7.[300] As North Korea's nuclear weapons were increasingly seen as a serious threat,[301] Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to meet a North Korean leader, meeting Kim Jong Un three times: in Singapore in June 2018, in Hanoi in February 2019, and in the Korean Demilitarized Zone in June 2019.[302] Talks in October 2019 broke down and no denuclearization agreement was reached.[303][304] Personnel Main articles: Political appointments of the first Trump administration and First cabinet of Donald Trump Further information: Hiring and personnel of Donald Trump By the end of Trump's first year in office, 34 percent of his original staff had resigned, been fired, or been reassigned.[305] By July 2018, 61 percent of his senior aides had left[306] and 141 staffers had left in the previous year.[307] Both figures set a record for recent presidents.[308] Close personal aides to Trump quit or were forced out.[309] He publicly disparaged several of his former top officials.[310] Trump had four White House chiefs of staff, marginalizing or pushing out several.[311] In May 2017, he dismissed FBI director James Comey, saying a few days later that he was concerned about Comey's role in the Trump–Russia investigations.[312][313] Three of Trump's 15 original cabinet members left or were forced to resign within his first year.[314][309] Trump was slow to appoint second-tier officials in the executive branch, saying many of the positions are unnecessary. In October 2017, there were hundreds of sub-cabinet positions without a nominee.[315] By January 8, 2019, of 706 key positions, 433 had been filled and he had no nominee for 264.[316] Judiciary Further information: List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump and Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies Trump appointed 226 federal judges, including 54 to the courts of appeals and three to the Supreme Court: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.[317] His Supreme Court appointments politically shifted the Court to the right.[318][319][320] In the 2016 campaign, he pledged that Roe v. Wade would be overturned "automatically" if he were elected and given the opportunity to appoint two or three anti-abortion justices. He later took credit when Roe was overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in 2022; all three of his Supreme Court nominees voted with the majority.[321][322] Trump disparaged courts and judges he disagreed with, often in personal terms, and questioned the judiciary's constitutional authority. His attacks on courts drew rebukes from observers, including sitting federal judges, concerned about the effect of his statements on the judicial independence and public confidence in the judiciary.[323][324] COVID-19 pandemic Main article: COVID-19 pandemic in the United States Further information: U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic and Communication of the Trump administration during the COVID-19 pandemic See also: Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States Trump initially ignored public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration.[325] Trump established the White House Coronavirus Task Force on January 29.[326] On March 27, he signed into law the CARES Act—a $2.2 trillion bipartisan economic stimulus bill—the largest stimulus in U.S. history.[327][328] After weeks of attacks to draw attention away from his slow response, Trump halted funding of the World Health Organization in April.[329] In April 2020, Republican-connected groups organized anti-lockdown protests against the measures state governments were taking to combat the pandemic;[330][331] Trump encouraged the protests on Twitter,[332] although the targeted states did not meet his administration's guidelines for reopening.[333] He repeatedly pressured federal health agencies to take actions he favored,[334] such as approving unproven treatments.[335][336] In October, Trump was hospitalized at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for three days with a severe case of COVID-19.[337] Investigations Further information: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Mueller special counsel investigation, and Mueller report After he assumed office, Trump was the subject of increasing Justice Department and congressional scrutiny, with investigations covering his election campaign, transition, and inauguration, actions taken during his presidency, his private businesses, personal taxes, and charitable foundation.[338] There were ten federal criminal investigations, eight state and local investigations, and twelve congressional investigations.[339] In July 2016, the FBI launched Crossfire Hurricane, an investigation into possible links between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign.[340] After Trump fired Comey in May 2017, the FBI opened a second investigation into Trump's personal and business dealings with Russia.[341] In January 2017, three U.S. intelligence agencies jointly stated with "high confidence" that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to favor Trump.[342][343] Many suspicious[344] links between Trump associates and Russian officials were discovered.[345][346][347] Trump told Russian officials he was unconcerned about Russia's election interference.[348] Crossfire Hurricane was later transferred to Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation;[349] the investigation into Trump's ties to Russia was ended by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein after he told the FBI that Mueller would pursue the matter.[350][351] At the request of Rosenstein, the Mueller investigation examined criminal matters "in connection with Russia's 2016 election interference".[350] Mueller submitted his final report in March 2019.[352] The report found that Russia did interfere in 2016 to favor Trump[353] and that Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged the effort,[354][355][356] but that the evidence "did not establish" that Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated with Russia.[357][358] Trump claimed the report exonerated him despite Mueller writing that it did not.[359] The report also detailed potential obstruction of justice by Trump but "did not draw ultimate conclusions"[360][361] and left the decision to charge the laws to Congress.[362] In April 2019, the House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas seeking financial details from Trump's banks, Deutsche Bank and Capital One, and his accounting firm, Mazars USA. He sued the banks, Mazars, and committee chair Elijah Cummings to prevent the disclosures.[363] In May, two judges ruled that both Mazars and the banks must comply with the subpoenas;[364][365][366] Trump's attorneys appealed.[367] In September 2022, Trump and the committee agreed to a settlement regarding Mazars, and the firm began turning over documents.[368] Impeachments Main articles: First impeachment of Donald Trump and Second impeachment of Donald Trump Trump was impeached twice by the House of Representatives, though acquitted by the Senate on both occasions. The first impeachment arose from a whistleblower complaint that in July 2019 Trump had pressured Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden,[369] in an attempt to gain an advantage in the 2020 presidential election.[370] In December 2019, the House voted to impeach Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress,[371] and the Senate acquitted him in February 2020.[372] The second impeachment came after the January 6 Capitol attack, for which the House charged Trump with incitement of insurrection on January 13, 2021.[373] Trump left office on January 20, and was acquitted on February 13. Seven Republican senators voted for conviction.[374] 2020 presidential election Further information: 2020 United States presidential election and Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign Trump filed to run for reelection only a few hours after becoming president in 2017.[375] He held his first reelection rally less than a month after taking office[376] and officially became the Republican nominee in August 2020.[377] Trump's campaign focused on crime, claiming that cities would descend into lawlessness if Democratic nominee Joe Biden won.[378] He repeatedly misrepresented Biden's positions[379][380] and appealed to racism.[381] Starting in early 2020, Trump sowed doubts about the election, claiming without evidence that it would be rigged and that widespread use of mail balloting would produce massive election fraud.[382][383] He blocked funding for the U.S. Postal Service, saying he wanted to prevent any increase in voting by mail.[384] He repeatedly refused to say whether he would accept the results if he lost and commit to a peaceful transition of power.[385][386] Loss to Biden and rejection of outcome Further information: Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election and 2020–21 United States election protests Joe Biden won the November 2020 election, receiving 81.3 million votes (51.3 percent) to Trump's 74.2 million (46.8 percent)[387][388] and 306 electoral votes to Trump's 232,[389] with the Electoral College formalizing Biden's victory on December 14.[389] Trump declared victory before the results were known on the morning after the election.[390] Days later, when Biden was projected the winner, Trump baselessly alleged election fraud.[391] As part of an effort to overturn the results, Trump and his allies filed many lawsuits challenging the results, which were rejected by at least 86 judges in both state and federal courts for having no factual or legal basis.[392][393] Trump's allegations were also refuted by state election officials,[394] and the Supreme Court declined to hear a case asking it to overturn the results in four states won by Biden.[395] Trump repeatedly sought help to overturn the results, personally pressuring Republican local and state office-holders,[396] Republican legislators,[397] the Justice Department,[398] and Vice President Pence,[399] urging actions such as replacing presidential electors,[397] or that Georgia officials "find" votes and announce a "recalculated" result.[396] In the weeks after the election, Trump withdrew from public activities.[400] He initially blocked government officials from cooperating in Biden's presidential transition.[401][402] After three weeks, the administrator of the General Services Administration declared Biden the "apparent winner" of the election, allowing the disbursement of transition resources to his team.[403] While Trump said he recommended that the GSA begin transition protocols, he still did not formally concede.[404][405] Trump did not attend Biden's inauguration on January 20.[406] January 6 Capitol attack Main article: January 6 United States Capitol attack In December 2020, reports emerged that U.S. military leaders were on high alert, and ranking officers had discussed what to do if Trump declared martial law.[407] CIA director Gina Haspel and Army general Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, grew concerned that Trump might attempt a coup or military action against China or Iran.[408][409] Milley insisted that he be consulted about any military orders from Trump, including the use of nuclear weapons.[410][411] At noon on January 6, 2021, while Congress was certifying the presidential election results in the U.S. Capitol, Trump held a rally at the nearby Ellipse. Speaking from behind a glass barrier,[412] he called for the election to be overturned and urged his supporters to "fight like hell" and "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol.[413] His supporters then formed a mob that broke into the building, disrupting certification and causing the evacuation of Congress.[414] During the attack, Trump posted on social media but did not ask the rioters to disperse. In a tweet at 6 p.m., he told them to "go home with love & in peace", called them "great patriots", and restated that he had won the election.[415] Congress later reconvened and confirmed Biden's victory in the early hours of January 7.[416] More than 140 police officers were injured, and five people died during or after the attack.[417][418] The event has been described as an attempted self-coup by Trump.[e]

and

Proposed text as of November 23, 2025
Donald Trump's first tenure as the president of the United States began on January 20, 2017 and ended on January 20, 2021. It was marked by controversy and unsuccessful implementation, with Trump becoming the first sitting president to be impeached twice. During his first term, he was praised and criticized for his actions during the Covid crisis in the USA.

Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still seeing benefits in following Slatersteven's version and suggestions on this edit which is supported by multiple editors (six of the editors are listed above), with two isolated editors opposing. It looks like Slatersteven's edits should be supported for inclusion and brought into the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Space, this is still far too long. Riposte97 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slatersteven: If both Mandruss and Space4T are indicating that they have no further additions, then the edit looks like the condensed edit as you presented it can be brought into the article. Current status is six supporting opinions to make the change over to the new condensed edit version. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consider my addition to be the current content of Donald Trump#First presidency (2017–2021). Six editors? Ernest Krause, Slatersteven, Valjean, ElijahPepe, Riposte97 — that's five, and Valjean and ElijahPepe haven't commented since Slatersteven made that mass-deletion suggestion. You need a bigger forum and more succinct titles than "Bulking down the article" or "1st presidency section" to announce to editors looking at this page that you are basically proposing to remove the entire first presidency section. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Provided you don't run afoul of WP:TALKHEADPOV. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 17:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replace, not remove. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're removing 99% of the content. That's kind of like replacing a person with the toes chopped off their left foot. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really as the material is still on Wikipedia (and linked to on this page), just not on this page. So it's more like removing the toes from a shoe, but leaving the toes on the foot. Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

<irony>Sure, let's make this biography a directory of the most important Trump subarticles. Just a little blurb for each is sufficient. Great idea.</irony> ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 18:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propose to put 24 "main" links and I don't know how many "further information", "see also", and inline links into three or even four or five or ten sentences? Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have 24 articles on his first presidency? Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First presidency of Donald Trump, First 100 days of the first Trump presidency, Domestic policy of the first Trump administration, Economic policy of the first Trump administration, Environmental policy of the first Trump administration, Social policy of the first Trump administration, List of people granted executive clemency in the first Trump presidency, Immigration policy of the first Trump administration, etc. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with these changes, if you need a sixth person. However, I believe the best course of action for anything worth implementing is a proposed WP:TNT rewrite that has others actively contributing changes. In order to do that, we need a standard. Books are probably the most useful, though even reputable authors are susceptible to tangents, e.g. Peter Baker and Susan Glasser in The Divider. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I agree with that. However, as I've said above, cut first. I’m not a pyromaniac; attempts at finding consensus for big rewrites inevitably cause disagreement, and give editors who want to keep everything space to block any change. That is how these proposals always die, and that is why I refuse to go down that path. Riposte97 (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Riposte97: The question should be: Should the "First presidency" section be reduced to three sentences? If the answer is "no", status quo prevails until someone has a better proposal. Status quo is better than a mere three sentences. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 20:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Otherwise, this reform will never get through. We have six in favour, two opposed. I think @Slatersteven: should do the honours. Riposte97 (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think and RFC may be needed. Slatersteven (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an RfC if the question is specific. An open "What should we do with the 'First presidency' section?" would not be productive because the discussion would go in five different directions at once. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 21:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I mean you have six editors supporting the placement of your edit. If you prefer you can likely place the edit which the 6 editors I have listed above are supporting, and then the minority of opposing editors can start Talk page or start an RfC if they feel a need to make a reasoned argument against the prevailing consensus. You are being supported by 6 editors to make your edit. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the sixth editor in favor? Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT is an essay, and so is WP:NOTNT. Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't cite it as policy. You are free to discuss it on either merit, but in this case, I firmly believe that the only option is to start fresh, given that some Trump literature is burgeoning. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple editors" supporting Slatersteven edit: Elijah, Valjean, Deamonpen, Slatersteven, myself, Riposte97

Editors opposed: Space4Time, Mandruss.

Reposting the list supporters for Slatersteven edits as requested by another editor. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Reduction of "First presidency"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is clear not to implement the proposed change. No need for an uninvolved close. Riposte97 (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

The First presidency (2017–2021) section currently comprises 15 subsections and 4,000+ words. Should it be reduced to the following three sentences?

"Donald Trump's first tenure as the president of the United States began on January 20, 2017 and ended on January 20, 2021. It was marked by controversy and unsuccessful implementation, with Trump becoming the first sitting president to be impeached twice. During his first term, he was praised and criticized for his actions during the Covid crisis in the U.S." 22:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

On the RfC's signature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gitz6666 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure. This unsigned RfC appears to have been submitted without signature and without full and proper notification of Slatersteven's comments, who is the editor that requested that an RfC be placed. The RfC appears to have been biased by someone who is "strongly opposed" to the proposal put forward in the discussion above on this Talk page. Slatersteven did not make any statement that any deletion whatsoever was to be made from the 300Kb article for the First presidency of Donald Trump; no deletion whatsoever. The unsigned requester of this RfC stating that "it be reduced to... three sentences" seems to be a full misstatement. Slatersteven has plainly stated that the material duplicated in the main biography article from the 1st Presidency article should be replaced because it duplicates material already being fully maintained as a 300Kb article on Wikipedia. Requesting here that the sys ops editor Daniel Quinlan who has added extended page protection for protecting the main Trump biography, to look at this irregularity of posting an unsigned RfC, and leaving out any and all mention of the 300Kb article on the 1st Presidency which already fully exists on Wikipedia. Should this RfC be closed as defective in origin and possibly replaced by a neutral statement of the actual editing facts; Slatersteven and other editors in their comments above have plainly refered to the 300Kb 1st Presidency article for Donald Trump as to remain completely in tact in its full size. Requesting comment from sys ops to examine closing this RfC as being defective and unsigned. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] See WP:RFCOPEN, item 6: Only time and date are required, and they were obviously provided. And this three-sentence proposal this three-sentence proposal with the comment This is all we need seems pretty unambiguous to me. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC) Corrected my mistake (duplicate of the previous diff). Space4TCatHerder🖖 10:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia policy is oriented to the principle of full attribution of all edits made by all editors. Your comment above seems to suggest that you feel that some sort of anonymity is granted for RfC procedures. There is no such anonymity and I've already asked for sys ops to try to find out who placed what appears to be a defective RfC. This is in order that other editors can ask the RfC author about his/her intentions in leaving out key information from the RfC, especially about the 300Kb First presidency of Donald Trump article being fully excluded from any mention on the RfC. I'm confident that sys ops will be able to locate the author of this RfC following established Wikipedia procedures for locating the editors of edits being made on Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] ? The person who nominated this RFC is not some secret? I was able to go into the edit history and see it in 2 seconds. Adding the other context reads to me a violation of WP:RFCNEUTRAL, and so I'd agree on not mentioning it. 1brianm7 (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Based on this diff, I've added the template:Unsigned to the RfC. I'm not notifying the RfC's initiatior, @Mandruss, and collapsing this "Full disclosure" as it is confusing and possibly in violation of WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Yes - Per the reasoning in the discussion above. This change is necessary to permit a more holistic treatment of the subject. Besides, everything will be preserved on subarticles. --Riposte97 (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No - This is far too drastic.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No per Jack. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No per Jack. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 05:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No this would be too drastic for a lede, not to even mention the body 1brianm7 (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've seen the full disclosure and stand by my previous comments. 1brianm7 (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No - Such an imbalance between the "First presidency" and "Second presidency" sections would be a case of WP:RECENTISM and therefore WP:UNDUE. Besides, the sentence During his first term, he was praised and criticized for his actions during the Covid crisis in the U.S. is particularly uninformative.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No per Jack and Gitz. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something? Ping me!) 17:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Still voting no after reading the full disclosure. Grover Cleveland, who also served two non-consecutive terms, has a long section for each of his presidencies. Reducing the section some might be necessary, but removing all except three sentences is way too drastic, even with a link to the full article about his first presidency. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something? Ping me!) 15:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No per Gitz. A whole sentence highlighting Covid-19 and nothing else doesn't add up. Consider closing per WP:SNOW. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Uninvolved SNOW closure welcome any time. If the general trend holds for a week, I'll do an involved closure. Sometimes it's a waste of time to go the traditional 30 days. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 20:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't mind doing it... should I close the RfC section or this entire discussion under Bulking down the article: Currently over 410 388Kb in size? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My preference? A more experienced editor. But please !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 21:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been here around a year and a half... how much experience are you looking for? Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We now have 23% Yes, too much for a SNOW close. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 04:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No. It's inadequate coverage for a presidential term that included the first withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the first reversal of policies and programs to reduce climate-changing emissions; a pandemic whose death toll was 400,000 by Trump's last day in office; children, including toddlers and babies, separated from their parents at the border and put in wire-mesh "compartments"; two impeachments; the refusal to acknowledge the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and attempts to overturn it, to name a few of the more memorable events in a part of Trump's life that affected the U.S. and the world. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the selectivity says a lot. WP needs to cover all those things, which include unprecedented breaches of civic norms. But it simultaneously needs to cover his first administration’s achievements, some of which neither the cultists nor the haters even noticed because the media sucks at understanding long-term trends. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it's not as if we do not have an article this very subject we can just link to. Nothing is going to be lost, it will still be on Wikipedia, just not cluttering up a page that is supposed to just be about his life. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No Further evidence of the "free beer or a fight" mentality of many Wikipedians, that compromise isn't an element of consensus. Further evidence that this article has suffered from the constant attention given by one or few editors with obviously entirely too much time on their hands. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - On condition that the "second presidency (2025–present)" section's content is also trimmed. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No, wildly inadequate to summarize one of the most important parts of his life. Compare what's suggested here vs. the business career and media career sections, both of which also have their own main articles - it would be absurd to make his first presidency section shorter than those given the massive difference in significance. If we're going to target parts to reduce to a shorter summary for length, those (as less important parts of his life) are logical targets before the presidency section. Though this would be too short even for them, I would strenuously oppose any version of the article that makes his first presidency section shorter than either of those two sections. I'd also agree with the comment above that, at an absolute bare minimum, the first presidency section should not be shorter than the second presidency section. Logically it makes sense for it to be the longest section in the article right now, since his presidency as a whole is the most important part of his life and the first presidency currently covers four times as many years as the second one. --Aquillion (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No - I oppose this change. Even if the article is very long, removing substantial content now would risk losing important context about a figure whose public life is unusually complex and widely documented. Cutting large parts from the section about his first presidency could create gaps that harm the balance of the biography. Ismeiri (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Three sentences is not enough to summarise his first presidency which is a notable part of his life.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 03:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Three sentences is fine for the lead, but this is the body we're talking about here. 3 sentences is far too short for this major part of his life. For example, Andrew Jackson, a featured article on a U.S. president, has around 4700 words for his two terms, giving an average of around 2350 words for each term. I support a reduction of the size of the first presidency section, but not down to 3 sentences. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - As SS sates, nowt will be lost, but unnecessary duplication.Halbared (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Yes; Full support for Slatersteven’s position on this matter, who appears to be the only editor to get this unusual RfC fully correct. It appears to be a poor option for editors to want to reduplicate material in this already over-large and sprawling biography of Donald Trump when the material is already fully existing and fully maintained on the separate 300kB article for the First presidency of Donald Trump. For example, when Wikipedia editors find two articles which are identical in content or even nearly identical in content, then one of them is normally placed for AFD. The same principle seems to apply here for strongly supporting Slatersteven’s position. I’m also fully endorsing the position of Riposte97 who has stated that its best to follow Slatersteven’s position for trimming the main Trump article, and then selectively make small additions as needed ‘’after’’ the main biography is trimmed. In theory, the first sentence of this unusual RfC should state that “The already existing 300Kb article for the First presidency of Donald Trump is not affected at all by trimming the already very large current version of the Donald Trump article.” Why reduplicate material which is already fully being maintained on Wikipedia at the article for First presidency of Donald Trump. I’m in full agreement with and supporting the position of both Slatersteven and Riposte97 for trimming the main Donald Trump biography. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No Never in favor of reducing reliably-sourced and important coverage to satisfy some boomer-like notion of page-is-too-long. Zaathras (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No. WP:SUMMARY does not say "your summary shalt not be more than three sentences long, nor shalt said sentences be anything other than incredibly vague". Looking at the actual examples it gives may be helpful here.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your Biblical phrasing made me laugh, I'll tell you that. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reduced, yes; to three sentences, no. Also, if you want the page size as measured in the history tab to be reduced, please replace a couple hundred newspaper articles/single-use sources with a couple of {{cite book}} instances. That will have a dramatic effect on the page size. Just for visible text, the article content is running about 10 characters in text for every 15 characters in references. The ratio is even more dramatic when you compare readable prose size against the wikitext for the sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No (Summoned by bot) per Jack and Gitz. Way too much of a trim. TarnishedPath^talk 22:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No (Summoned by bot) This section could benefit from some cutting back (probably starting with cutting Domestic Policy back and folding other sections into it). The article for the first presidency is 300 kB, while the lead is 766 words. I don't think this, or any other single paragraph, can provide an adequate summary. CamAnders (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What size are you suggesting as the best option. If reduplicating the full 300Kb article is too much and 766 words is too small, then how much of the full 300Kb article for the first presidency are you suggesting should be copied here? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing should be copied here. This article should use summary style. To copy something is not to summarize it. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 16:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi CamAnders; Another editor just below you, Bill Williams, seems to have a very similar idea to yours; are the parameters he seems to be setting up look like what you are suggesting? Then maybe you could add a comment or two under his statement right below yours. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think we should necessarily have a numerical size target that we're aiming for. Instead we should aim to accurately summarize his first term for readers with a general interest in Trump, using as much space as needed. Given the significance of that part of his life, three sentences is not enough. The current text has the opposite problem, giving more a blow-by-blow account than a general reader needs. The ideal size is something we'll need to discover by editing rather than proscribe in an RfC CamAnders (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No the first presidency section must be trimmed significantly, with at most five subsections and 1000 words. However, these three sentences are poorly written and do not explain his first presidency enough. I will propose separate RfCs to remove some unnecessary content, since this is not the right approach. Bill Williams 20:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Bill Williams; Your suggestion sounds alot like Slatersteven and Riposte97 in the above discussion who voted "Yes" but left it open to adding material and sentences as needed to a trimmed version of this subsection. Maybe that's similar to your comment. If you feel that a new RfC might state the case better, then it looks like multiple editors of both "Yes" and "No" might be ready to go along with you to replace this RfC. Ping me if you need support. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ErnestKrause; I would recommend an RfC to cut specific sentences in the first presidency section (you can even cut most sentences), rather than cutting almost everything. You can always debate cutting more in the future. Bill Williams 03:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Bill Williams; Your previous comments seemed to say that you might be ready to close this unusual RfC and perhaps replace it with one resembling your RfC about the second presidency below which is going fairly well. Maybe you could do something like that here to replace this poor RfC as soon as possible. Ping me if I can support you; many editors in this RfC have already commented about the shortcomings of this unusual RfC. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As of today this article's size is 386,7 KB/12,779 words, and it's down 24 KB from the 410 KB it had three weeks ago when it was approaching critical. (FWIW, Barack Obama's is 394.1 KB/12,993 words.) Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is still sprawling and oversized at about 390Kb. Its huge size makes it unfortable for new readers to even try to read the article from top to bottom. It still takes 50-60 minutes to try to read from top to bottom which is very unseemly for most readers appraching this sprawling and oversized article. Anything approach 400Kb is just much too large for most readers to deal with in a practical sense. The size of the article needs more reduction. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for other editors' input

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Precedural Note: This section appears to be procedurally incorrect and redundant to the section directly above it as noted in the Talk discussion placed below this edit. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Donald Trump#First presidency (2017–2021) section, including its subsections, be replaced by the following sentences?
Donald Trump's first tenure as the president of the United States began on January 20, 2017 and ended on January 20, 2021. It was marked by controversy and unsuccessful implementation. During his first term he was praised and criticized for his actions during the Covid crisis in the USA.
Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be redundant and procedurally incorrect. All the participating editors have just spent an entire week discussing this very issue above. If you have an argument then just add it to the discuss already in process for a full week. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: lead sentence on "authoritarian" actions and "contributing to democratic backsliding"

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the lead of this article keep or remove the sentence "Trump's actions, especially in his second term, have been described as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding."

Pinging editors in the previous discussion: Valjean, Mandruss, GoodDay, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Riposte97. Bill Williams 20:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the previous discussion. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey: lead sentence on "authoritarian" actions and "contributing to democratic backsliding"

• Remove. The lead already includes a long sentence that specifies which of Trump's second-term policies are the most challenged: "His administration's actions—including targeting of political opponents and civil society, actions against transgender people, deportations of immigrants, and extensive use of executive orders—have drawn over 300 lawsuits challenging the legality and constitutionality of the actions." On the other hand, the "authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding" sentence is a controversial claim, yet it uses the WP:WEASEL words "have been described" and it violates WP:SUMMARY by only having two corresponding sentences in the body. Two other sentences use the word "authoritarian" in the body, but not in reference to all of Trump's second-term actions (which is what the lead sentence claims). The body also says nothing about Trump's first-term actions being "authoritarian," while the lead sentence implies this ("Trump's actions"). Saying Trump's actions in his first or second term are "authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding" is a major accusation for a WP:BLP and would require far more substance in the body than two sentences, because the lead is only supposed to summarize the most important parts of the body. But it should not be expanded in the body, since the body already includes specific accusations of Trump's wrongdoing, which is WP:NOTABLE because reliable sources almost always make specific claims rather than using loaded terminology like "authoritarian" and "democratic backsliding." Bill Williams 20:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove - It's best we not have such claims in this BLP. Also, deletion would trim the section & thus shorten the BLP. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopaedia, we are not into this whole cult of denying the obvious. Assuming that we survive the next five years, people will look back on these debates and shake their heads. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove per Bill and GoodDay. Their reasons are sound. Riposte97 (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove per Bill Williams. An encyclopedia should present facts and allow readers to make their own judgments. I don’t think in general that it’s a good idea to have to use the present perfect for the kind of analyses that require a bit of hindsight. In this particular case, I think historians will see Trump as a notable instance (or if you prefer symptom) of a global phenomenon. And editorially, if you put stuff like that in the lead, as opposed to the body, it tends to make the article less neutral, or seem facially to be (which is literally the same thing as WP exists to be read…or scanned by search engines’ LLMs). A full and complete presentation of Trump’s polarizing effects is best done in the body. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove. As Bill Williams noted the lead already includes text that talks about the legality and constitutionality of Trumps actions so including a line about him being Authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding is unnecessary. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's one of the major threads of coverage about him and his administration within academic coverage, so it belongs in the lead of this article. The rationale here isn't appropriate, either; we do cover controversial claims prominently when they have substantial coverage (as this one does). Likewise, per WP:WEASEL, it is not weasel wording to use broad attribution for things line the lead that summarizes a wide range of views in the body or sub-articles. --Aquillion (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove - The article needs to be shortened and per User:GothicGolem29 and User:Bill Williams, this line seems a little repetitive and gratuitous. NickCT (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as neither "too many controversial things in the lead" not "article too big" are valid rationales to delete material. Controversial people tend to o multiple controversial things. Zaathras (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not say there are "too many controversial things in the lead"; I said that claiming Trump's actions are "authoritarian" and "contributing to democratic backsliding" is controversial and therefore requires substantial explanation in the body, yet it only has two sentences in the body. I also did not say "article too big"; I said that the lead already contains a separate, lengthy sentence that specifies which of Trump's second-presidency actions have been challenged, so it does not make sense to include a redundant, loaded sentence with less context. Please read what I said and give an actual response. Bill Williams 20:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep one of the most defining, salient things so belongs in the lead and body. Andre🚐 21:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove. Bill Williams exemplary explanation covers it well enough.Halbared (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove. The sentence is perfectly true but redundant; sometimes less is more. --Andreas JN466 15:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a defining and highly notable aspect of his second presidency (perhaps it should be rewritten to focus exclusively on the 2nd presidency, as his 1st presidency's actions were not widely perceived as authoritarian). The sentence is not redundant because facing legal issues and being described as authoritarian is not the same thing. The sentence is not biased because it does not propagate that Trump is authoritarian but merely states that his actions have been described as such, which is objectively and verifiably the case. The sentence is not a case of WP:WEASEL; see the second paragraph of the guideline, which applies here. The sentence is not generalizing because it does not state or imply that all of his actions have been described as authoritarian. The sentence is not a case of WP:OR because the lead does not have to use the exact same wording as the body which it summarizes.--Maxeto0910 (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The "authoritarian" sentence is redundant because the sources that are cited for the "authoritarian" claim almost entirely refer to Trump's targeting of political opponents and civil society, actions against trans people and immigrants, and the lawsuits against his extensive use of executive orders that are allegedly unconstitutional challenges; all of this is included in a separate sentence in the lead. The "authoritarian" sentence is WP:WEASEL based on the second paragraph of the guideline, because a bold claim requires "views that are properly attributed to a reliable source"; a minority of reliable sources make the claim that Trump's actions are authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding, yet the sentence implies that a majority make the claim. Also, no one in this RfC argued that the "authoritarian" sentence is WP:OR, but it certainly doesn't summarize the body because there's two sentences on this in the body out of literally thousands, so putting it in the lead violates WP:SUMMARY. Bill Williams (talk • contribs) 06:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove — Per Bill Williams, but I am also skeptical of the notion that we should be summarizing his term so quickly. That determination should be made by news organizations or scholars after his presidency has concluded. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Claim seems to be well supported by expert consensus. Even experts quoted in the Guardian article as "more hopeful" don't pushback on the description as authoritarian, just the idea that resistance is futile. It also seems to be perfectly DUE: Trump's presidencies are of course notable and a short, accurate, summary of expert opinion like this seems fine for the lead. CamAnders (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's DUE then why is it two sentences in the body; it's two sentences because most reliable sources and academics don't argue that Trump's actions are authoritarian or contributing to democratic backsliding. It's also impossible to have a single sentence in the lead that is a "short, accurate, summary" to back a very bold claim about Trump, unless the vast majority of sources agree, such as agreeing that he often makes false or misleading statements. Reliable sources do not overwhelmingly agree that Trump's actions are "authoritarian" and therefore it shouldn't be in the lead. Bill Williams 06:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't see this as undue, and while it is true that the lead offers specific policies he has proposed, they don't necessarily indicate the more serious accusation that he is bringing an authoritarian style of governance to United States politics. Controversial claim? Yes. Frequently repeated claim supported by multiple academic sources? Yes. Deleting would be to remove the most salient claim by academics and critics of his governance style. aaronneallucas (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is measured, balanced, and well documented and sourced. Indeed it should be strengthened now, with so many sources speaking of corruption - but that would need more work in the article. It certainly should not be removed. It is clearly due. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove. Very much agree with Bill William's sentiment. The article currently references democratic backsliding in regards to "Trump's actions against civil society" citing three sources, though none of those sources mention the term "democratic backsliding". If one were to attribute the claims, it should probably be to "800 political scientists including Brendan Nyhan and Steven Levitsky, Democratic attorneys general, and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance" but even then, such would be far too detailed rather than WP:SUMMARY, and is already encompassed in the "His administration's actions... challenging the legality and constitutionality of the actions" IMO, if one were to compare it with the very last sentence of the lead regarding being one of the worst presidents, there is just not enough substance regarding authoritative sources making that claim. As Bill noted, there are only two corresponding sentences, compared to five in Scholarly rankings (which also attributes 3 surveys). At minimum, I think the reference to democratic backsliding should go. The authoritarian comment has relatively more substance (6), though more often in regards to his rhetoric rather than actions. John Kinslow (talk)
• Remove per Bill Williams. An exceptional claim like this would need a lot of substance in the body. Also, the claim is only supported by news media in the body (per current sourcing). Thus, to be lead worthy this would have to be a very significant and weigthy media narrative, and I have not seen evidence for this. Though, WEIGHT is hard anyway. Otherwise, for it to be included in the lead, there would have to be a strong, clear, and overwhelming academic consensus for the claim--not just a few academics who've written a paper on it. Again, no evidence of this in the body. No academic sources cited. R. G. Checkers ^talk 07:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: deleting sentences from second presidency section

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

(When viewing this article in source editing) the second presidency section is 10,462 words and 68,064 characters.

Should we keep or remove the following 3,123 words and 20,513 characters of sentences (including headings and ellipses) under "Content Proposed to Be Deleted"? Any sentences prior or following the removed sentences would be slightly edited for grammar and clarity to account for the removal. Pinging editors in the previous discussion: Valjean, Mandruss, GoodDay, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Riposte97, SusanLesch, Bishonen, Dark Dreaming. Bill Williams 21:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content Proposed to be Deleted

Early actions, 2025–present ...Many of these tested his legal authority, and drew immediate legal action.[1] Four days into his second term, analysis conducted by Time found that nearly two-thirds of his executive actions "mirror or partially mirror" proposals from Project 2025.[2] In his first weeks, several of his actions ignored or violated federal laws, regulations, and the Constitution according to American legal scholars.[3][4][5]... Conflicts of interest, 2025–present ...In August 2025, Trump's mandatory disclosure of investment showed that, since taking office, he had made 690 purchases of municipal bonds and corporate stock totaling at least $103.7 million. Included was stock in companies affected by his changes to federal policies.[6]... ...In July 2025, the Trump administration accepted a $400 million luxury jet from Qatar. The aircraft will serve as Air Force One until the end of his second term, when it will be transferred to his presidential library. The retrofitting as Air Force One is estimated to cost up to $1 billion.[7]... Mass terminations of federal employees ...To facilitate further terminations, it adopted a novel legal interpretation that vastly expands the range of departments and agencies considered as having national security for their primary function,[8][9][10] declaring various federal workers' unions "hostile".[11][12] A late March executive order based on this interpretation excluded dozens of departments and agencies from federal labor-management relations programs, prompting them to sue to invalidate their collective bargaining agreements,[13][10] which could remove union protections from one million federal employees.[11][14]... ...Some actions, such as attempts to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, were paused by federal courts.[15] Many of his actions attempted to bring historically independent institutions under direct executive branch control in diminished forms.[16]... Targeting political opponents ...His actions were described by the media as part of his promised "retribution" and "revenge" campaign, within the context of a strongly personalist and leader-centered conception of politics.[17][18][19]... ...He continued filing personal lawsuits against his political opponents, companies, and news organizations that angered him.[20] By July 2025, Trump had extracted more than $1.2 billion in settlements in a "cultural crackdown" against a variety of institutions that largely chose to settle rather than fight back.[21][22] ... Domestic policy, 2025–present ...Trump inherited a resilient economy from the Biden administration, with increasing economic growth, low unemployment, and declining inflation.[23]... ...He promoted climate change denial and misinformation,[24] appointed oil, gas, and chemical lobbyists to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reverse climate regulations and pollution controls,[25] and by October 2025 had cancelled $7.6 billion in funding for clean energy projects approved by the previous administration.[26]... ...Dismantling government agencies enforcing the laws against political corruption and white-collar fraud,[27] Trump reduced the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section from 30 to five lawyers,[28][29] dismissed 17 independent inspectors general at government agencies[30] and 12 members of independent oversight boards and watchdog agencies,[31] and disbanded the squad in the FBI's Washington field office that investigated allegations of fraud and corruption against government officials and members of Congress.[32][33] He pardoned or dropped charges against officials accused of corruption.[32]... ...He sought to remake civil society to his preferences by executive order.[34][35]... ...Trump had crews demolish the White House's East Wing in October 2025 to make room for a White House State Ballroom, which is planned to be nearly twice the size of the White House.[36][37]... Foreign policy, 2025–present ...The moves were described as ceding American global influence and creating a void filled by Russia and China.[38][a] Trump's relations with allies were transactional and ranged from indifference to hostility, including threats of annexation.[40][41]... ...Economists argued that the administration misunderstood the relationship between trade deficits and tariffs, using flawed assumptions.[42] Trump suspended American financial contributions to the World Trade Organization.[43]... References Wootson, Cleve R. Jr. (January 21, 2025). "Trump's executive orders already face pushback, legal challenges". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 23, 2025. Popli, Nik (January 24, 2025). "Trump's Early Actions Mirror Project 2025". Time. Retrieved January 25, 2025. Savage, Charlie (February 5, 2025). "Trump Brazenly Defies Laws in Escalating Executive Power Grab". The New York Times. Retrieved February 5, 2025. Rein, Lisa (January 29, 2025). "How Trump is stretching laws to make the federal government more political". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 4, 2025. Pereira, Ivan (January 28, 2025). "Trump funding freeze a blatant violation of Constitution, federal law: Legal experts". ABC News. Retrieved February 4, 2025. Allison, Bill (August 20, 2025). "Trump Embarks on $104 Million Bond-Buying Spree". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on August 20, 2025. Retrieved November 21, 2025 – via Yahoo! Finance. Flaherty, Anne (July 28, 2025). "US accepts 'unconditional donation' of Qatari jet, cost of retrofitting is classified: Sources". ABC News. Retrieved August 2, 2025. Wagner, Erich (March 28, 2025). "Trump order aims to outlaw most government unions on 'national security' grounds". Government Executive. Retrieved March 31, 2025. Druker, Simon (March 28, 2025). "Executive order would ban federal employee unionization, collective bargaining". UPI News. Retrieved March 31, 2025. Kanu, Hassan Ali (March 28, 2025). "Trump administration sues to end some federal workers' union contracts". Politico. Retrieved March 31, 2025. O'Brien, Rebecca Davis (March 29, 2025). "Trump Order Could Cripple Federal Worker Unions Fighting DOGE Cuts". The New York Times. Retrieved March 31, 2025. Hsu, AnwebsiteZdrea (March 28, 2025). "Trump signs order ending union bargaining rights for wide swaths of federal employees". NPR News. Retrieved March 31, 2025. Wiessner, Daniel (March 28, 2025). "Trump administration sues to invalidate dozens of union contracts". Reuters. Retrieved March 31, 2025. Iyer, Kaanita; Luhby, Tami (March 28, 2025). "Trump signs executive order ending collective bargaining rights for many federal workers". CNN. Retrieved March 31, 2025. Gillison, Douglas (March 28, 2025). "Federal judge orders halt to Trump administration efforts to dismantle consumer agency". Reuters. Retrieved April 3, 2025. Kavi, Aishvarya; Wong, Edward (April 2, 2025). "Musk's Task Force Begins Shutting Down Foreign Policy Research Center". The New York Times. Retrieved April 3, 2025. Mazzetti, Mark; Swan, Jonathan; Haberman, Maggie; Schmidt, Michael S. (January 28, 2025). "In Exacting Retribution, Trump Aims at the Future as Well as the Past". The New York Times. Retrieved January 28, 2025. Cite error: The named reference Collinson was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Moynihan, Donald (July 10, 2025). "Trump, Personalism, and US Administrative Capacity". Politics and Policy. 53 (4) e70059. doi:10.1111/polp.70059. Retrieved October 5, 2025. Dreisbach, Tom (April 28, 2025). "Trump has used government powers to target more than 100 perceived enemies". NPR News. Retrieved April 29, 2025. Basu, Zachary (July 30, 2025). "Trump's billion-dollar settlement spree". Axios. Retrieved July 30, 2025. Mascaro, Lisa (April 18, 2025). "Law firms, universities and now civil society groups are in Trump's sights for punitive action". AP News. Retrieved April 25, 2025. Multiple sources describe the economy inherited by the Trump administration as resilient and strong: Horsley, Scott; Simon, Scott (January 25, 2025). "Trump inherits a strong economy by the numbers. What's his plan to lower prices?". NPR News. Rugaber, Christopher (January 23, 2025). "Trump's inheriting a solid economy, making it harder to lower borrowing costs or inflation". AP News. Retrieved January 23, 2025. Casselman, Ben (December 18, 2024). "The Economy Is Finally Stable. Is That About to Change?". The New York Times. Retrieved January 23, 2025. Smart, Tim (January 9, 2025). "Trump Will Inherit a Better Economy Than He Left Behind". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved January 23, 2025. Baker, Peter (January 5, 2025). "Trump Sees the U.S. as a 'Disaster.' The Numbers Tell a Different Story". The New York Times. Retrieved January 23, 2025. Joselow, Maxine; Plumer, Brad (July 31, 2025). "Energy Dept. Attacks Climate Science in Contentious Report". The New York Times. Retrieved August 3, 2025. Friedman, Lisa; Tabuchi, Hiroko; Davenport, Coral (January 25, 2025). "Trump Stocks E.P.A. With Oil, Gas and Chemical Lobbyists". The New York Times. Retrieved January 26, 2025. Daly, Matthew; Phillis, Michael (October 3, 2025). "Trump administration cuts nearly $8B in clean energy projects in states that backed Harris". AP News. Retrieved November 5, 2025. Delanian, Ken (June 3, 2025). "Firings, pardons and policy changes have gutted DOJ anti-corruption efforts, experts say". NBC News. Retrieved July 13, 2025. Richer, Alanna Durkin; Tucker, Eric (March 12, 2025). "Justice Department is expected to slash public corruption unit, AP sources say". AP News. Retrieved July 13, 2025. Lynch, Sarah N.; Parker, Ned; Eisler, Peter; Goudsward, Andres (June 9, 2025). "How Trump defanged the Justice Department's political corruption watchdogs". Reuters. Retrieved July 13, 2025. Miller, Zeke; Tucker, Eric; Weissert, Will (January 26, 2025). "Trump uses mass firing to remove independent inspectors general at a series of agencies". AP News. Retrieved July 13, 2025. Shao, Elena (May 22, 2025). "In Firing Watchdogs, Trump Sidesteps Laws and Moves to Expand Power". The New York Times. Retrieved July 13, 2025. Goldman, Adam; Thrush, Glenn; Barrett, Devlin (May 22, 2025). "F.B.I. Dismantles Elite Public Corruption Squad". The New York Times. Retrieved July 13, 2025. Tucker, Eric (March 12, 2025). "The FBI is disbanding one of its public corruption squads in its Washington office, AP sources say". AP News. Retrieved July 13, 2025. Rogers, Katie (August 30, 2025). "From Cracker Barrel to Sydney Sweeney, Trump Has an Opinion to Share". The New York Times. Retrieved September 7, 2025. Tucker, Eric (April 11, 2025). "Trump reaches deals with 5 law firms, allowing them to avoid prospect of punishing executive orders". AP News. Superville, Darlene; Martin, Jacquelyn (October 23, 2025). "White House East Wing demolished as Trump moves forward with ballroom construction, AP photos show". AP News. Retrieved November 5, 2025. "How Trump's ballroom will dwarf the White House". The Washington Post. October 25, 2025. Retrieved October 28, 2025. Hsu, Tiffany (June 24, 2025). "As U.S. Dismantles Voice of America, Rival Powers Hope to Fill the Void". The New York Times. Retrieved September 7, 2025. Wike, Richard; Poushter, Jacob; Silver, Laura; Fetterolf, Janell (June 11, 2025). "U.S. Image Declines in Many Nations Amid Low Confidence in Trump: 1. Views of the United States". Pew Research Center. Erlanger, Steven (February 27, 2025). "Indifference or Hostility? Trump's View of European Allies Raises Alarm". The New York Times. Retrieved February 28, 2025. Broadwater, Luke (February 27, 2025). "With Trump, Alliances Come With Strings Attached". The New York Times. Retrieved February 28, 2025. Weissmann, Jordan (April 6, 2025). "The White House cited these economists to justify its tariffs. They aren't thrilled". Yahoo Finance. Farge, Emma (March 28, 2025). "Exclusive: US pauses financial contributions to WTO, trade sources say". Reuters. Retrieved March 28, 2025.

Methinks, this violates both WP:RFCBRIEF and WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Also, see overuse note. Space4TCatHerder🖖 23:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to specify how any of those policies apply, rather than making a bunch of criticisms with no explanation. The RfC is brief and neutral. I explained it in a few sentences, and I proposed to remove a lot of content because every discussion about removing individual sentences goes nowhere, even though editors overall agree that every section of this article must be trimmed. Do you want me to cite discussions for the claim that editors agree on this, even though you've been in these discussions dozens of times? Bill Williams 03:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill Williams: Neutrality aside, it is in no way brief: the statement (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) comes out as more than 21 thousand bytes, which is far too long for Legobot to handle, and so this RfC is not showing properly at either WP:RFC/POL or WP:RFC/BIO. Please supply a much shorter statement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I JUSTFIXedIT. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 13:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A statement that there was an "overwhelming" agreement isn't neutral, it's your opinion and should include the links to those discussions. You pinged only nine editors which doesn't say "overwhelming participation" in previous discussions. The main objection against previous attempts wasn't what to cut but how to go about it, i.e., mass deletion versus individual trimmings based on the individual text. This proposal also doesn't involve an individual evaluation of the text to be cut. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only pinged editors in the most recent discussion. There has been overwhelming participation in dozens of discussions on cutting the article, and editors overwhelmingly agree that the article must be cut. I deleted the term "overwhelming" from the RfC so there isn't a concern about neutrality, and feel free to ping/link additional discussions on cutting in the past if you feel that is necessary. Bill Williams 15:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of editors in numerous discussions hav[ing] overwhelmingly agreed, this RfC is actually based on this one discussion in which three editors out of eight agreed? Seems a tad misleading to me. (It's unclear to me what DarkDreaming's position is.) At least, I assume that's the discussion you're referring to because it's the only one with comments by both Bishonen and DarkDreaming that I could find. Wikipedia:Writing_requests_for_comment#Brief explains that the RfC question can include links to other discussions or other pages, but the topic of discussion and the question being asked should be understandable without them. Is it? And when you cite numerous discussions, you need to provide the links to support your argument(s). Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As of today this article's size is 386.7 KB/12,779 words, and it's down 24 KB from the 410 KB it had three weeks ago when it was approaching critical. (FWIW, Barack Obama's is 394.1 KB/12,993 words.) Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Space, this all strikes me as wikilawyering. What is your position on the proposal itself? Riposte97 (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Space4T isn't even accurately "wikilawyering." As you can tell by the votes thusfar in the RfC, most editors have thought about this before and determined that the article is too long. We've had dozens of discussions about it for the past 6+ years that I've been here, and every time a majority of editors say that we need to trim the article, but disagree on what. The second presidency section is now longer than the first presidency section that editors have complained about the length for years; there is no serious argument that it needs to be cut down. Bill Williams 03:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't WP:V also apply to claims made on the talk page? I would think that linking to previous discussions you cite for your claim (Editors in numerous discussions have agreed) is a matter of courtesy towards other editors, especially in RfCs summoning editors who have not been watching the article and this talk page regularly. Other editors, e.g. in this discussion and others, have disagreed. The two problems I pointed out in my first comment were fixed - Mandruss fixed the format, and you removed the word "overwhelming" in the opening statement. You're still claiming overwhelming support - fine, your opinion, but don't accuse me of wikilawyering and inaccurate wikilawyering. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Bill Williams and Riposte97 are referring to the general reduction of the article size similar to what took place last January 2025 with the support of several editors, which resulted in successfully reducing the article from about 411Kb down to about 337Kb in February 2025 here: [1]. If you need an exact count of how many editors were supporting there and how many were opposing, then you might make an exact tally which was sufficient to create a consensus to do the general reduction done at that time. Bill Williams currently appears to be receiving good support from several editors to keep up his efforts in trying to reduce the size of this sprawling and over-large article. Your comment on the highly divided discussion about reducing the size of the Political practice section from several months ago can also be re-addressed by Bill Williams here when the time comes. Currently at about 390Kb in size, the current Trump biography appears to be sprawling and bloated beyond what is needed for general readers of the article who link to it from Google looking for a reasonably sized article about Trump; the 390Kb current version of the biography misses the mark here and is sprawling and over-large, requiring a good deal of trimming. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill Williams, thank you for having the courtesy to ping members of the previous discussion in your RfC. It would be unrealistic for you to dig through the archives of every previous discussion about trimming Trump's page over the last 6 years and pinging all of those editors. Editors who are actively involved in Trump's page keep an eye on RfCs and should have this talk page on their Watchlist. At some point, we have to put the onus on the editors to be active and engaged on Trump's page if they want to have a say in timely changes. Penguino35 (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Space4Time3Continuum2x; You've been involved in multiple discussions where most editors agreed that we need to trim. Discussion [2] in Jan/Feb 2025, where four editors agreed that the article needs to be trimmed and none disagreed with that overall need; you were in the discussion but didn't comment on the overall need. Discussion [3] in Aug/Sep 2023 where 11 editors agreed to trim and six said we should not trim; some other editors, including you, were in the discussion but did not comment on the overall need to trim and instead commented on issues with the specific discussion. I came across plenty of other discussions where a majority editors stated the need to trim the article, but the discussions were not focused on that issue. Either way, I agree that we can resolve any issue of neutrality by removing the mention of the need to trim the article from the RfC proposal, which I'm doing now. Bill Williams 21:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Williams, this was a bad RfC from the start. You have now edited the first paragraph of your RfC announcement for the third time without indicating the changes per WP:REDACT after editors have responded. First version: Editors in numerous discussions have overwhelmingly agreed that this article must be trimmed, but disagree on what content should be cut. In source editing, the second presidency section of this article is 10,462 words and 68,064 characters. Second version: Editors in numerous discussions have agreed that this article must be trimmed, but disagree on what content should be cut. In source editing, the second presidency section of this article is 10,462 words and 68,064 characters. Third version: (When viewing this article in source editing) the second presidency section is 10,462 words and 68,064 characters. And it finally dawned on me that there's something wrong with your stats. According to today's article info, the entire article is 386,212 bytes. It's prose is 83,294 bytes, 83,108 characters, and 12,769 words. Donald Trump#Second presidency (2025–present is 68,231 bytes; its prose is 14,688 bytes, 14,674 characters, and 2,140 words. The content you propose to delete is 20,544 bytes; its prose is 1,582 bytes, 1,577 characters, and 255 words. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Full support for Bill Williams's original take on helping to make the Trump biography article more readable; requiring readers to spend 50-60 minutes to read this sprawling and over-long biography of Trump from top to bottom is bad news for readers. Trimming the article should be a high priority for responsible editors, and Bill Williams has a good approach here. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey: deleting sentences from second presidency section

• Remove. Please look through the existing second presidency section before voting in this RfC. You can quickly see that all of the sentences that I'm proposing to remove are either redundant to other sentences in the body, or are trivial because this is Trump's personal article and therefore must cover the most important information across his entire lifetime. If reliable sources barely covered a topic, or stopped talking about a topic months ago, then it is violating WP:NOTNEWS to include it in Trump's personal article. Almost all of these sentences are already in the Second presidency of Donald Trump article, and belong there rather than in this article. Many of these sentences also violate WP:OR by linking to articles, documents, or surveys that nearly no other sources have cited. If you vote to "keep" the content, you need to provide a compelling argument for why most of it is essential to Trump's personal biography, and explain how it is not redundant to other content that is already in this article. Bill Williams 21:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad-RFC (Summoned by bot): There is another RFC that overlaps with this at Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC:_Reduction_of_"First_presidency". That should be allowed to run prior to running an overlapping RFCs. TarnishedPath^talk 23:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @TarnishedPath, please read the proposal carefully. The RfC you refer to relates to a different section. Riposte97 (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The primary argument in favor of this and the prior RFC is that this article is approaching the technical limits and will break if it becomes much larger. Should the prior RFC succeed, those concerns would be mollified, and should it fail, those concerns would be maintained. 1brianm7 (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  TarnishedPath, 1brianm7; as I said in the RfC, an overwhelming share of editors agree that every single section of this article is too long. The RfC on cutting the first presidential section has nothing to do with this RfC, because they are two separate sections, and both need to be trimmed. Bill Williams 03:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove per Bill. This stuff is all clutter and dead wood that can safely be cut before we have some real debates about what the section should look like long term. Riposte97 (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove. This all looks unnecessary and so should be cut to reduce the size of the article. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove - Such info can be placed in the Second presidency of Donald Trump article. GoodDay (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove (summoned by bot) would place into the Second presidency of Donald Trump page. Thanks.Wuerzele (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is too sweeping; many of these contain key aspects that would not be properly summarized after removal. For instance:
  • Removing Four days into his second term, analysis conducted by Time found that nearly two-thirds of his executive actions "mirror or partially mirror" proposals from Project 2025 would mean that the article would contain no mentions of Project 2025 at all; that's not appropriately summarizing a key aspect of his presidency. It could be reworded or tweaked to use more sources or to cover a broader timeframe, but simply removing it isn't appropriate.
  • Likewise, the removal of the Some actions, such as attempts to dismantle... removes the key conclusion summary from that paragraph; it makes no sense to take that out. It can be updated as things change, but the section needs a conclusion.
  • And the His actions were described by the media as part of his promised "retribution" and "revenge" campaign... sentence is a key summary of the reaction to his targeting; without something like that near the top of the section, we're not indicating why the other parts there are significant.
  • And Trump inherited a resilient economy from the Biden administration, with increasing economic growth, low unemployment, and declining inflation is the key context summary for domestic policy; no valid rationale has been presented here for removing it and it doesn't reflect anything else in the article - without that we wouldn't be providing any context for what things were like before his actions here. No other part of the article summarizes this aspect.
  • Like several of the above suggestions, the removal of the He promoted climate change denial and misinformation,[24] appointed oil, gas, and chemical lobbyists to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reverse climate regulations and pollution controls,[25] would leave no discussion of climate change in his second administration or of his promotion of climate change misinformation, which has received massive amounts of coverage.
  • The removal of the entire paragraph stating Dismantling government agencies enforcing the laws against political corruption and white-collar fraud,[565] Trump reduced the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section from 30 to five lawyers,[566][567] dismissed 17 independent inspectors general at government agencies[568] and 12 members of independent oversight boards and watchdog agencies,[569] and disbanded the squad in the FBI's Washington field office that investigated allegations of fraud and corruption against government officials and members of Congress.[570][571] He pardoned or dropped charges against officials accused of corruption. would leave no coverage of that aspect, either, despite it being a major thread of coverage in the sources.
  • He sought to remake civil society to his preferences by executive order is, again, a key summary sentence - these are the sorts of sentences we should be retaining! These removals are taking out summaries.
  • Taking out The moves were described as ceding American global influence and creating a void filled by Russia and China would leave no mention of the way his foreign policy actions have benefited those nations (particularly Russia, which has received massive coverage; and China - the way his actions have benefitted China would no longer be mentioned anywhere in the article at all).
  • Taking out Economists argued that the administration misunderstood the relationship between trade deficits and tariffs... would remove the only expert summary of his tariff policy that we have.

  More generally, just looking at these, they feel one-sidedly selected; if the objection is to the article's length, we should focus on uncontroversial removals rather than key summary sentences like these. And many of these, since they are summaries, are not adequately covered elsewhere - they're often the only mention of the relevant aspects. Some aspects could be reworded, but this proposal loses key aspects of the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Aquillion; I responded to each of your points below.

  1. There has been little coverage of Project 2025 following Trump's inauguration. It's irrelevant with respect to Trump's entire life (this is his personal article) and reliable sources have given it minimal weight in the past 10 months.

  2. The paragraph in question shouldn't be an independent paragraph and therefore it doesn't need a conclusion. The single sentence on Elon Musk and DOGE can be part of the preceding paragraph. No reliable source is seriously arguing that Trump's actions towards the CFPB are one of the biggest parts of his second presidency. It belongs in his second presidency article but not his personal article.

  3. The preceding sentence says "during his second presidency, the Trump administration took a series of actions using the government to target political opponents and civil society." There is zero need to redundantly add a sentence on "retribution" and "revenge," and "strongly personalist and leader-centered conception of politics" is a bold and unnecessary claim to make for one sentence in Trump's BLP.

  4. It's absurd and a complete violation of WP:NPOV to insert a sentence about how amazing the previous president's economy was into Trump's personal article. Each individual sentence regarding Trump's second presidency can state that unemployment rose, inflation rose, etc. under Trump, without having an intro sentence to praise up Biden.

  5. Add some relevant sentences on Trump cutting environmental regulations, which I agree belongs in the body. Reliable sources talk 99% about the regulations that Trump cuts, and 1% about "climate change denial and misinformation" or "appointed oil, gas, and chemical lobbyists to the [EPA]." You can add sentences on the 99%, I'm just proposing to remove the 1%.

  6. I agree that we can add one new sentence on Trump dismissing independent officials, and include Trump encroaching on independent agencies as part of that sentence. However, this existing paragraph focuses on issues that reliable sources barely cover, e.g. "enforcing the laws against political corruption and white-collar fraud," and disbanding some specific FBI field office, and reliable sources almost never connect the pardons of corrupt people to the dismissal of officials and the FBI field office.

  7. This sentence is completely redundant. Every other sentence in the paragraph says exactly why Trump took executive actions against DEI, universities etc.

  8. Giving some "expert analysis" of Trump's actions may have a place in his second presidency article, but absolutely not in his personal article. If we added expert analysis of everything Trump did during his first and second presidencies, then this article would double in size. We already say specifically which foreign policy actions that Trump took, and that is sufficient.

  9. Again, this has no place in Trump's personal article. We can't add "expert analysis" to every single economic-related action that Trump has taken. Should we also say that Trump misunderstands the relation between tariffs and inflation, between immigration and crime, etc? We'd double the size of the article.

  I appreciate that you individually responded to each sentence that I proposed to remove. I hope you understand my rebuttals as well. Bill Williams 15:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Bill Williams, I'm having a hard time pairing the sections/sentences in "Content Proposed to be Deleted" with these numbered items. About #4: "absurd", "complete violation of WP:NPOV", "praise up Biden" — seems a bit overexcited for a fairly bland sentence when two of its cited sources (US News and the second NY Times cite) use the phrases "inheriting from President Joe Biden" and "inherit from President Biden", respectively. Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The nine numbers correspond to each of the nine bulleted points that Aquillon made. As for the sentence on the economy, every president "inherits" the entire administration from the previous president; should we begin every single sentence in Trump's personal article with how Biden handled an issue? Immigration, trade, foreign policy, etc? No, because this is Trump's personal article and that would double the length of the page. The only reason the sentence on Biden was included is because editors want to fill this page with as many Democratic talking points as possible, hence why the page is way too long throughout. Also, during his entire four years, Biden had the highest inflation of any president in 50 years, but the sentence cherrypicks data to say inflation was "declining" even though it was still at high levels. Zero economists would argue that inflation was low at the end of his term, and this article doesn't need details that are irrelevant to Trump. Bill Williams 06:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The only reason the sentence on Biden was included is because editors want to fill this page with as many Democratic talking points as possible, hence why the page is way too long throughout. Ah, yes, kind of like I feel about the U.K. — ev'vybody driving on the wrong side of the road, except me, the steering wheel is on the wrong side of the car, and the only affordable rentals have a stick shift, on the wrong side of me. Never mind. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Never mind" is the correct attitude. Dozens of editors, not just me, agree that this article includes thousands of words on trivial issues to make Trump look bad. There are literally zero sentences on trivial issues to make Trump look good in this article, and that's how it should be. Bill Williams 20:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional oppose, unless removal will ensure information is retained elsewhere, and the article is only shortened to comply with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. If information is to be removed, the (sub)section it is currently in should link to the (sub)article where the information will be retained. I support splitting off parts of articles when the article gets too long, but not cutting in the content of an article just to shorten it. The information is relevant and a reader should be able to find it if they come to this page, although they may first need to read summaries in this page that prompt them to click through to more in-depth subject articles. Slomo666 (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove per Bill. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove as Bill Williams appears to have this correctly addressed. Can something similar be suggested for the 1st presidency section as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ErnestKrause; we can have an RfC on trimming the first presidency section in the future, but not until the current RfC ends. Most editors here agree that almost every section of this article is too long. Bill Williams 03:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You appear to have multiple editors supporting you on this, and you might be able to move along more expeditiousy than expected. I'm agreeing with you as to multiple sections being able to benefit from this effort to downsize this over-large article. The RfC currently running for the 1st presidency seems largely redundant at this time and can probably be closed in order not to be a drain on RfC resources, that is, taking up editors time for a result that should be superceded by the new RfC for the 1st presidency which you just mentioned. Full support for your moving ahead with this; just ping me for support as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove. Good job, Bill Williams. Everything I expected to find missing was said somewhere else. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and discuss the content you propose to remove individually. Making a start here with Early actions, 2025–present. I just edited the section. I'll address the rest of the proposed deletions in the coming days.

  ...Many of these tested his legal authority, and drew immediate legal action.[1] Changed this to say "tested the limits of his presidential authority" per the source.

  Four days into his second term, analysis conducted by Time found that nearly two-thirds of his executive actions "mirror or partially mirror" proposals from Project 2025.[2] Second Aquillion's comment. There has been ample coverage of the implementation of Project 2025's agenda by the Trump administration, the actions of Project 2025's principal author Russell Vought who heads the OMB, and other Project 2025 authors on Trump's staff. Here's the yield of a first Google search: Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, NBC News, AP News, Time, CNN, BBC News, NPR, Nature, PBS, NYTimes, Independent, CBS News, Der Spiegel. I added the October 3 AP News source and rephrased the sentence.

  In his first weeks, several of his actions ignored or violated federal laws, regulations, and the Constitution according to American legal scholars.[3][4][5]. I rephrased: "According to legal scholars, several of his actions ignored or violated federal laws, regulations, and the Constitution." The president ignoring the Constitution and laws—unimportant for his personal legacy?

  Early actions, 2025–present

  ...Many of these tested his legal authority, and drew immediate legal action.[1] has information that the sentence listing the number of lawsuits in various stages doesn't provide, i.e., they tested the limits of Trump's legal authority. Suggested rephrasing: Many tested the limits of his presidential authority and drew immediate legal action.[5] They were challenged by over 300 lawsuits nationwide. By mid-November, 149 had been blocked or partially blocked, 102 left in effect, and 107 were pending.[6]

  Four days into his second term, analysis conducted by Time found that nearly two-thirds of his executive actions "mirror or partially mirror" proposals from Project 2025.[2] Contrary to the OP's claim, there has been ample coverage of the implementation of Project 2025's agenda by the Trump administration, the actions of Project 2025's principal author Russell Vought who heads the OMB, and other Project 2025 authors on Trump's staff. Here's the yield of a first Google search: Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, NBC News, AP News, Time, CNN, BBC News, NPR, Nature, PBS, NYTimes, Independent, CBS News, Der Spiegel. Suggested rephrasing with the added Associated Press cite: Many of his executive actions mirrored Project 2025 proposals,[7] such as dramatically expanding presidential power, reducing the federal workforce, and blocking funding approved by Congress.^[1]

  Conflicts of interest, 2025–present

  ...In August 2025, Trump's mandatory disclosure of investment showed that, since taking office, he had made 690 purchases of municipal bonds and corporate stock totaling at least $103.7 million. Included was stock in companies affected by his changes to federal policies.[6]...

  ...In July 2025, the Trump administration accepted a $400 million luxury jet from Qatar. The aircraft will serve as Air Force One until the end of his second term, when it will be transferred to his presidential library. The retrofitting as Air Force One is estimated to cost up to $1 billion.[7]... I added both of these texts. I don't see how these personal enrichments by way of his office won't be part of his personal legacy but fine, remove them. The investments need updating because the next quarter's mandatory disclosure showed that Trump keeps buying stock in companies affected by his presidential decisions, so that's going to be a recurring event. And the lawsuit about the DOJ's approval of the $400 million personal gift is pending.

  Mass terminations of federal employees

  ...To facilitate further terminations, it adopted a novel legal interpretation that vastly expands the range of departments and agencies considered as having national security for their primary function,[8][9][10] declaring various federal workers' unions "hostile".[11][12] A late March executive order based on this interpretation excluded dozens of departments and agencies from federal labor-management relations programs, prompting them to sue to invalidate their collective bargaining agreements,[13][10] which could remove union protections from one million federal employees.[11][14]...

  ...Some actions, such as attempts to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, were paused by federal courts.[15] Many of his actions attempted to bring historically independent institutions under direct executive branch control in diminished forms.[16].. Both of these (union busting and elimination of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are part of Project 2025's agenda. What the article needs is a section on the implementation of Project 2025, including these.

  Targeting political opponents

  ...His actions were described by the media as part of his promised "retribution" and "revenge" campaign, within the context of a strongly personalist and leader-centered conception of politics.[17][18][19]... The sentence preceding this one (During his second presidency, the Trump administration took a series of actions using the government to target political opponents and civil society.) is actually the one that should be removed. Quoting an editor in another, very recent RfC: WP:SUMMARY does not say "your summary shalt not be more than three sentences long, nor shalt said sentences be anything other than incredibly vague". Also, "the Trump administration using the government"? It is the government. I don't see why we need to attribute Trump's actions as "described" by the media and put retribution in square quotes; promises made, promises kept is well documented.

  ...He continued filing personal lawsuits against his political opponents, companies, and news organizations that angered him.[20] By July 2025, Trump had extracted more than $1.2 billion in settlements in a "cultural crackdown" against a variety of institutions that largely chose to settle rather than fight back.[21][22] ... personal lawsuits — using the power of the presidency to extract payments for his personal enrichment.

  Domestic policy, 2025–present

  ...Trump inherited a resilient economy from the Biden administration, with increasing economic growth, low unemployment, and declining inflation.[23]...

  ...He promoted climate change denial and misinformation,[24] appointed oil, gas, and chemical lobbyists to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reverse climate regulations and pollution controls,[25] and by October 2025 had cancelled $7.6 billion in funding for clean energy projects approved by the previous administration.[26]...

  ...Dismantling government agencies enforcing the laws against political corruption and white-collar fraud,[27] Trump reduced the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section from 30 to five lawyers,[28][29] dismissed 17 independent inspectors general at government agencies[30] and 12 members of independent oversight boards and watchdog agencies,[31] and disbanded the squad in the FBI's Washington field office that investigated allegations of fraud and corruption against government officials and members of Congress.[32][33] He pardoned or dropped charges against officials accused of corruption.[32]...

  ...He sought to remake civil society to his preferences by executive order.[34][35]...

  ...Trump had crews demolish the White House's East Wing in October 2025 to make room for a White House State Ballroom, which is planned to be nearly twice the size of the White House.[36][37]...

  To be continued! Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC) Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reverted your changes to the early actions section, as the parts you changed are currently under discussion. Riposte97 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Only three sentences (#2, 3, and 4) were proposed for deletion. Most of the section wasn't under discussion. Space4TCatHerder🖖 00:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove. Deadwood is an appropriate term (and the best programme).Halbared (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove and strongly disagree to handling each of these edits separately. On multiple discussions, that gets us nowhere. Bold edits like this will likely have to continue every few years as subject creep will undoubtedly settle in again and again. I also appreciate Bill Williams' bulleted rebuttal above that gives additional clarity on why this particular section was targeted. Nice work. Penguino35 (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad-RFC per WP:TALKFORK: discussion about shortening this page was already ongoing in another RfC at the time of it's creation. If the RfC must continue, Keep per Aquillion's explanationCamAnders (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The other RfC has been closed. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: After one week of this RfC, there appear to be 10 opinions to remove and 2 opinions to keep. This seems to be an aggregate opinion of stated positions, and it is not a vote, with 2 other editors citing concerns about the simultaneous RfC, which has since been closed. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't worry about it. When all the RFCs are closed, we'll have a general consensus of something. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record: two keeps, one "conditional oppose" removal, two "bad RfC"s. Also, there's a lot of material to go through, and I, for one, haven't finished looking at all [the] clutter and dead wood, including 43 cited sources, that it took editors who are apparently much faster readers — or who have more time — than me only a few hours to go through. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep some of this material could do with better summarizing, but I just can't square the argument that the 2nd presidency of Donald Trump has any different concerns from Donald Trump's article. If readers go to the presidency article and look at the tariff section, they'd expect to find information about the effects of the tariffs. If readers go to the persons article and look at the tariff section... they'd expect to find information about the effects of the tariff. (technical concerns aside) This article has 12,769 words, that is longer than suggested, but exceptions are explicitly noted, and I'd be damned if Donald Trump wasn't an exception. 1brianm7 (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. Colvin, Jill (October 3, 2025). "Trump no longer distancing himself from Project 2025 as he uses shutdown to further pursue its goals". AP News. Retrieved December 4, 2025.

“King” and “Killer”

There is a line in Early life and education:

“His father told him repeatedly that he was ‘a king’ and to be ‘a killer’.”

I do not see how this sentence is necessary info for an encyclopedia article and not intended to make some contemporary political implication. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, by all means. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Define "necessary". You could make the same argument about anything negative in this article. The sentence is reliably sourced and relevant to a biography of the man. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 19:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could write many thousands of pages of content about Trump that is reliably sourced. By necessary I mean in order to summarize his life for an encyclopedia article. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His life could be summarized without it, and was for a number of years. His life is summarized better with it. I.e., it was an improvement. I welcome and support anything of that nature, whether negative or positive. Feel free to boldly add something positive with sourcing. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 19:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's father telling Trump "you are a killer, you are a king" is based on what one of Trump's classmates at New York Military Academy told Harry Hurt III. Other journalists cited Hurt's book. How is that not one of the minute or minor details with "little coverage" so popular with the "must be trimmed" and "there's a child article" regulars on this talk page? Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you supporting or opposing? I can't tell. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 20:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant and should be removed. As Bzweebl noted, this isn't something that multiple reliable sources claim is a notable part of Trump's life. It's hearsay where Trump supposedly told someone who told someone else who then told the public in a book that few other sources cite. Bill Williams 20:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle. I have always relaxed the principle for early-life material because it's so hard to find. If the hearsay is a problem, it can be reworded with some kind of attribution. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 03:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove this. Complete waste of space. R. G. Checkers ^talk 07:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. No evidence that this is in any way notable whatsoever, neither is the relevance evident from the way the information is textually presented. It just reads weird, awkwardly biased and absolutely unencyclopedic. Maxeto0910 (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Per comment from Maxeto0910. Not notable. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Space4T has the right source from Hurt. No reason to remove this unless it's replaced with another sentence that explains Fred Trump's parenting style. "Remove" is a slippery slope to meaningless if we allow that everybody's pet peeve should be deleted. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support removal of this one. The source is Trump via his classmate. I don't particularly care whether it's true or not—by all accounts, Trump père was an ogre—but putting it in an encyclopedia bio seems a tad like psychoanalyzing, as in using a terrible childhood as a mitigating circumstance in court. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Goldwater rule doesn't rule out factual history. I'd rather see it on the page than carry it around in my head. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it. Trivial bit, questionable sourcing. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mentors

While we're at it, I support removing the first sentence in that paragraph, too: Growing up, he regarded his father and the family's pastor, Norman Vincent Peale,[18] as mentors. This is how Kranish/Fisher puts it: Peale was the only person other than his father whom Donald called a mentor (he resisted using that term for Cohn, insisting that the lawyer was "just a lawyer, a very good lawyer"). Peale "would give the best sermons of anyone; he was an amazing public speaker", Trump said. "He thought I was his greatest student of all time." ... As Donald Trump found success, Peale predicted that Trump would become "the greatest builder of our time." Trump, in turn, credited Peale with teaching him to win by thinking only of the best outcomes: "The mind can overcome any obstacle. I never think of the negative." "Donald called [Peale] a mentor" — that's not Kranish/Fisher saying that he was, so we'd also need to attribute the claim to Trump: "Trump said that growing up he regarded ...". Kranish/Fisher's source is this 2016 article, which also said "Trump said" and quoted Peale thusly: Peale, for his part, described Trump as "kindly and courteous" with "a streak of honest humility," and touted him as "one of America’s top positive thinkers and doers." The minister also called Trump "ingenious" and predicted that he would be "the greatest builder of our time." (Hoo boy, except for "ingenious", as in contriving, not the obsolete meaning.) Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gwenda Blair has a realistic view of Peale, even cynical. Blair is most interested in Fred (and Mary) Trump, rather than Donald, following Peale. Man it's hard for anybody to grow up right under control of a possibly shady faith healer. I have no problem with removing this if you don't care. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).